On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Tad Glines<[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Is there a (possibly assumed) document size limit? >> >> The protocol spec currently doesn't specify this. However, the next >> revision of the spec will include support for coded error messages >> including one encouraging a remote server to stop sending so much >> data, or that the document they are working on is too large. > > This sounds like any size limits will be left up to the server > implementation. If this limit isn't available to all servers > participating in a wave, then interoperability issues might arise. One > way to avoid this is to add some wavelet properties that define wave > limits. Since the wavelet is hosted on the creating server, this would > allow all remote servers to stay within the defined wavelet limits.
Yes, it is our plan to put size limits into the spec. We're working on defining a limit that's effective and cheap to compute by all parties, it has to account for the size of all the characters, tags, attributes, annotations, and participants in documents and wavelets. >> > As far as I can tell, the only way for a remote server (or client) to >> > obtain >> > the current version of a wavelet/doc is to reconstruct it from the history. >> > This seems like it would be suboptimal in cases where a wavelet has a large >> > history. Am I missing something? >> >> It's important for you to request the entire history as each delta >> will be signed by the originating party. If you optimise the process >> by sending a snapshot (which you might want to do from server to >> client, depending on your trust model) you lose the ability to verify >> that a wavelet was actually written by its claimed author. > > As I understand it, all wavelet updates are signed by the federation > host. The updates are signed by the providers of the users who author the updates, which may be different from the provider who hosts the wavelet. > If the version hash was included in the update signature, then > the content at that version is easily verified without looking at the > history. The version hash is presently a hash of the update history, not a hash of the snapshot. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Wave Protocol" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
