Great, Michael, find a date that works for you that seems to match with others' interests and I will be glad to arrange for this. We can have the link available but not make public, if that helps to encourage constructive participation.
All the best, John Blossom email: jblos...@gmail.com phone: 203.293.8511 google+: https://google.com/+JohnBlossom On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Michael MacFadden < michael.macfad...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am definitely interested. I will check my schedule for next week. > > ~Michael > > On 7/16/13 11:02 AM, "John Blossom" <jblos...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >That was my thought, also. ApacheWavers, please respond with some avails > >calibrated to UT+1 for this week and next week. Time to get this party > >started! My L,A. project is waiting for the funder to come through, but my > >Nkommo project is gaining steam - hopeful that we'll have some exciting > >announcements fairly soon. Time to change the world with Wave!!! > > > >All the best, > > > >John Blossom > > > >email: jblos...@gmail.com > >phone: 203.293.8511 > >google+: https://google.com/+JohnBlossom > > > > > >On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Joseph Gentle <jose...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> I've had a busy few weeks - gearing up to launch our product at work. > >> We should organize another hangout sometime. > >> > >> -J > >> > >> On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 7:24 AM, John Blossom - Shore Communications > >> Inc. <jblos...@shore.com> wrote: > >> > Soo...how is this initiative going? How may I help to move it forward? > >> > > >> > Best Regards, > >> > > >> > John Blossom > >> > President > >> > Shore Communications Inc. > >> > > >> > where content, technology and people meet. (Salesmark of Shore > >> > Communications Inc.) > >> > > >> > web: shore.com > >> > blog: contentblogger.com > >> > email: jblos...@shore.com > >> > phone: 203.293.8511 > >> > fax: 203.663.8259 > >> > twitter: jblossom <https://twitter.com/jblossom> > >> > google+: google.com/+JohnBlossom > >> > LinkedIn: John Blossom <http://www.linkedin.com/in/johnblossom> > >> > facebook: John Blossom > >> > skype: jblossom > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:43 AM, John Blossom <jblos...@gmail.com> > >>wrote: > >> > > >> >> Ingenious, Torben, certainly adds efficiency. John > >> >> > >> >> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 4:38 AM, Torben Weis <torben.w...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> 2013/6/25 Joseph Gentle <jose...@gmail.com> > >> >>> > >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> When peers connect, they send each other missing ops. Figuring > >>out > >> >>> > >> which ops are missing can be surprisingly tricky - but we'll > >> figure > >> >>> > >> that out later. New ops must be ingested in order, so we always > >> >>> ingest > >> >>> > >> an operation after ingesting all of its parents. > >> >>> > > >> >>> > Just use a Merkle Tree that is at the same time a prefix tree with > >> >>> respect > >> >>> to the hashes of the ops (explanation below). > >> >>> The bandwidth usage is O(1) if both clients are in sync and O(log > >>n) if > >> >>> they have one or few different ops and O(n) in the worst case, > >>where n > >> in > >> >>> the number of ops. > >> >>> > >> >>> Constructing the tree is simple. > >> >>> Let the hash function output 20 bytes and let's encode this in hex. > >> This > >> >>> results in a hash-string of 40 hex-characters for each operation. > >> >>> Each node hashes over the hashes of its children. Leaf-nodes > >> correspond to > >> >>> operations and thus use the hash value of their respective > >>operation. > >> >>> The tree-invariant is that all siblings on level x share the same > >> prefix > >> >>> of > >> >>> x hex-characters. > >> >>> The tree is not sent over the network. Instead, clients start > >>comparing > >> >>> the > >> >>> hashes at the root. > >> >>> > >> >>> Two clients compare their root hash. If it is equal, the entire > >>tree is > >> >>> equal and therefore they are in sync. > >> >>> If not, they download all direct children and repeat the procedure > >>for > >> >>> each > >> >>> sub-tree rooted by one of these children. > >> >>> For example, if child number 3 has a different hash, but all others > >> share > >> >>> the same hash, then we have learned that there are one or more ops > >> with a > >> >>> hash of 3xxxx... that are different and need syncing. > >> >>> > >> >>> Typically we can limit the depth of the tree to few levels. 8 levels > >> >>> already yield a tree that could store 16^8 possible ops. So in the > >> worst > >> >>> case two clients need to wait for 8 round-trips to determine a > >>missing > >> op. > >> >>> > >> >>> In addition, each client sends a time stamp. So when syncing we > >>report > >> the > >> >>> last time stamp received from this client and ask for all ops this > >> client > >> >>> received later. If these are few, then simply get them (even if we > >>know > >> >>> some of the ops already, because we got them from another client). > >>If > >> >>> there > >> >>> are too many ops, fall back to the merkle tree. With a good > >> approximation > >> >>> of RTT and bandwidth, it is easy to calculate which algorithm is the > >> best > >> >>> to sync two clients. > >> >>> > >> >>> Greetings > >> >>> Torben > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >
