It's more than just an option - it's the only clear path forward. Hopefully Dan Peterson and crew understand that.
Cheers, Dan On Jan 31, 12:55 pm, Brett Morgan <[email protected]> wrote: > Dan, > > An option is to use a variant of OT that uses a vector clock instead > of the current single master OT. > > The fun thing would be that using a vector clock OT would even help > out in the construction of fault tolerant Wave hosts, instead of > having single points of failure inside the data center. > > brett > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:45 AM, Dan Peterson <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]. > >>> 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. > > > -- > > 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. > > -- > Brett Morganhttp://domesticmouse.livejournal.com/ -- 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.
