Hello Jochen, I was hoping that you would address some of the questions/issues raised by Torben and I. In particular, I asked:
> Yes, we are all aware that Dixon and Lamping had a hand in what you > have done. May I ask which other OT researchers you consulted in > deciding which path to head down? I know Sun has given talks to > Google - have you considered his work? Are you able to answer this? Cheers, Dan On Feb 1, 8:31 pm, Daniel Paull <[email protected]> wrote: > On Feb 1, 5:37 pm, Jochen Bekmann <[email protected]> wrote: > > > In our current implementation, the server does normally not echo > > transformed operations back to a client. Under some failure > > conditions, however, this can happen. > > And herein lies the problem. What you have just said is not clear at > all from the Google OT whitepaper and certainly is not the way the > FedOne client/server works. To expect an audience that is not > familiar with OT to work out for themselves that it is wrong to send > the transformed operation from the server back to the originating > client is, in my opinion, unreasonable. However, it would have taken > very little time and effort to mention it somewhere. > > To make matters worse, your previous comments stated that the server > did indeed send the transformed op back to the client under normal > operating conditions (albeit not "the entire delta ... in order to cut > down the amount of data on the network"). So, I am now de-riddled of > confusion. Thank you for the clarification. It's a shame the > clarification didn't come months ago in another thread, but hey, > better late than never, right? I know you're very busy. > > > What you just described is what we call "recovery". We do have a > > slightly more complex recovery mechanism to deal with a badly crashed > > server loosing some state. > > Why would you call it recovery? It's a normal part of the handshaking > between a client and server when a wave is opened. > > > We were > > fortunate enough to be able to consult with Dixon and Lamping > > (http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=215585.215706) during this > > process. > > Yes, we are all aware that Dixon and Lamping had a hand in what you > have done. May I ask which other OT researchers you consulted in > deciding which path to head down? I know Sun has given talks to > Google - have you considered his work? > > > Fortunately, the federation protocol > > frees implementors to write their own take on the client/server > > protocol as well. > > I'm not convinced that this is entirely true. I think that the > federation protocol forces your hand quite a bit. Perhaps we have > different ideas about what freedoms you are talking about. > > Cheers, > > Dan -- 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.
