Joseph Gentle, did you see *rfc6902 *JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)
Patch specification <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6902#appendix-A>? Do
you plan you add OT for this spec in livedb?
On Sunday, October 19, 2014 4:46:11 AM UTC+4, Joseph Gentle wrote:
>
> It does complicate the type, and it breaks my nice abstraction. Also
> remember that any funny logic will need to be on the server and the
> client - and I'd really like the server to be application-agnostic if
> possible. That said, the server will probably need
> application-specific schema validation & access control code anyway,
> so maybe its not a big deal.
>
> Another option is to just do the dangerous thing for objects, but
> actively encourage people to use lists instead. If you're inserting
> into a list instead of inserting into an object, the semantics are
> safe & easy. The final list will just contains both items. For
> hierarchal to-do lists, you probably want a children:[] list on your
> nodes anyway. Using object-move when the key is either a GUID or a
> hash of the data would work fine as well because your keys won't
> conflict.
>
> This won't work if you're trying to map a directory structure of files
> though. But thats the only bad use case I can think of. Maybe
> something as simple as a flag on the move operation saying "in the
> case of conflicts, rewrite the destination key to {key}_n". Or we
> could just force the IDE to use a list of files, and leave deduping
> hacks there.
>
> -J
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Ali Lown <a...@lown.me.uk <javascript:>>
> wrote:
> > Hi Joseph,
> >
> > I think that the only sensible option is to delegate the resolution of
> > this action in the case of conflict back into the application, so some
> > sort of extension of (4) that allows some arbitrary lambda expression
> > to be passed as the onconflict method. (Depending on the situation,
> > they might want to 'merge' the two items (if possible), rather than
> > moving one into a 'backup' location).
> >
> > This does complicate the OT type, and does make it more difficult to
> > analyse how long certain actions will take to resolve though...
> >
> > How does this sound?
> >
> > Ali
> >
> > On 19 October 2014 00:33, Joseph Gentle <jos...@gmail.com <javascript:>>
> wrote:
> >> I'm (finally!) taking a serious look at making a better version of the
> >> JSON OT type. I'm cross-posting this here because it directly effects
> >> sharejs & derby users, and I think any serious rewrite of wave will
> >> use something like this at the top level to store waves.
> >>
> >> I have two questions that I would love some input on from the wider
> community.
> >>
> >> We want to add a 'move' action which will let you transplant arbitrary
> >> parts of the JSON structure to other places in the tree. This is
> >> really useful if, for example, you want a hierarchal to-do list, a
> >> tree of source files for your IDE or a tree of blips.
> >>
> >> But I can't figure out what should happen if two users move different
> >> objects to the same place in the tree at the same time.
> >>
> >> 1. The simplest option is to simply delete one of them. This is really
> >> convenient from a programming pov, but I think that would be the worst
> >> kind of surprise. {x:1, y:2} -> {z:2}
> >> 2. We could try and make one of the moves fail - {x:1, y:2} -> {x:1,
> >> z:2}. On the face of it this sounds great, but this is a cascading
> >> failure. If (locally) I move x->z then insert some new data at x, what
> >> happens to the new data? Does the new data get deleted? Does x get
> >> deleted? I can't think of a good answer here which isn't just
> >> dangerous in a more complicated way. Making both the moves fail has
> >> the same problem.
> >> 3. We could pick a winner and then move the loser to some special
> >> lost&found bucket or something. So, {x:1, y:2} -> {__recovered_z:1,
> >> z:2} But that could play havoc with data bindings, and we'd have to
> >> introduce some reserved keys. The other way to do this is to introduce
> >> a new top-level structure which contains the data, so it'd be
> >> {data:{x:1, y:2}} -> {data:{z:2}, lost:[{z:1}]}.
> >> 4. Or we could add the backup location into the move operation itself,
> >> so whoever's building on top of this API can make the choice. (They
> >> can make a better decision because they know what the data structure
> >> looks like). So instead of (move x->z) we'd have (move x->z,
> >> onconflict:(move x->__x)) or something.
> >>
> >> Are there any other choices I'm missing here? I'm edging toward option
> >> 4, although it might increase the type's complexity by 50% unless I
> >> can think of a clean way to do it.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> -J
>
