Dave Cridland wrote: > On Fri Mar 7 03:58:37 2008, Joonas Govenius wrote: >> >> 2. You are concerned about optimizing reconnects by taking advantage >> of the state that the client already has. I gave this some thought and >> there's actually no reason why SXE couldn't do basically the same >> thing as your protocol: > > Of course, Boyd's mentioned this, too, as well as the related case where > a presentation using whiteboarding spans a day or two, and the next > morning, the presenter has updated the document. > > This is a particular case of resynchronization, because the assumption > here is that there's a significant chunk of events that may need shipping. > > SXE appears, to my eyes anyway, to be particularly inefficient at > transmitting large changes, and I suspect that this may be at the core > of Boyd and Fabio's concerns.
At some point, shared editing / xml synchronization shades over into file transfer. I don't know exactly where the transition point lies, but it seems to me that it might be difficult to design a technology that will be good at both small-change synchronization and large-change update. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
