Agreed. This is an area I've been thinking about lately -- the electing a new master scheme is appealing, but then what do you do when the original master returns to the rest of the network (e.g. the uplink that was severed is restored, then there'd be 2 servers that think they are master)?
As an alternative scenario, I suppose the wave client UI could encourage a "fork" of the wave conversation -- copying the latest version of the contents into a new wavelet on the non-dead wave provider. Of course, forks are effectively duplicate content, so not so ideal. -Dan On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:36 AM, Torben Weis <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I fear it is not as easy as assigning it to missing FedOne features. > > If the master wave server breaks you need some other server to take > over. But the domain name of the broken server is encoded in the wavelet > URIs which are encoded (i.e. signed and hashed) inside the deltas. Thus, you > cannot simply replace the wave server without taking care of the > cryptographic problems. > > Even if this is dealt with, how do you efficiently vote on a new master > server? It must not happen that at any time there is doubt about the master > server (i.e. several clients deem different servers to be the master). > Wave's OT cannot handle such a scenario. There are peer-to-peer OT concepts > which can deal with it, but wave does not currently. > > I think this is a really interesting research question, but the solution > will not be all too easy. > This being said, even normal federation is complex enough :-) > > Cheers > Torben > > 2010/1/29 Mickaël Rémond <[email protected]> > > Hello, >> >> Le 29 janv. 2010 à 13:17, chiang a écrit : >> >> > Hi all, >> > >> > This could already have been a known deficiency in the federation >> > architecture, but I would like to enquire if it is by design that we >> > have authoritative or master wave servers for a particular wave? As >> > I've just found out that if the Fedone wave server (which hosts a >> > master copy of my initiating wave) goes down or losses all the waves, >> > the Fedone wave server does not recover the wave from wavesandbox, >> > which also has a copy of the wave. I initially thought wave servers >> > federation is supposed to be scalable, and resilient... >> >> Fedone is an example implementation, not a production ready wave server. >> For example, it still miss the storage engine, is not clustered etc. >> So this limitation is not by design but simply a not-yet-implemented >> feature. >> >> Having an authoritative server for every wave seems a good and needed >> approach for the Wave protocol itself. >> >> -- >> Mickaël Rémond >> http://www.process-one.net/ >> >> -- >> 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]<wave-protocol%[email protected]> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en. >> >> > > -- > 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]<wave-protocol%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en. > -- 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.
