> TP2 leads us to the area of peer-to-peer Umm... no.
Supporting TP2 merely allows operations to be applied in different orders on different sites and still guarantee convergence. Of course this little gem can be used to build a peer-to-peer system, but TP2 does not force you to use any particular network topology. In particular, it does not mean that you can't implement a client/server topology. TP2 would allow multiple servers to be peers in a trusted network, offering fail-over support and redundancy. These servers can then accept connections from clients in the same manner that Wave does now. Without TP2 support, I do not see how it is possible to have multiple Wave servers for a domain. If this is true, then Wave will never scale to large numbers of users. Whack in TP2 satisfaction and the scalability problem is licked. Once you satisfy TP2 you can get rid of the server acknowledgement from the protocol and significantly improve interactivity between clients. this *should* then lead to symmetry in the OT algorithms used on th client and server side, making them both simple and elegant. Once you satisfy TP2 you can stop thinking of federated servers as gateways and proxies - they can become trusted peers is a network of servers, offering even better scalability, redundancy and interactivity. In my opinion there in absolutely nothing bad that comes from satisfying TP2. There is, however, a whole swag of things that you miss out on by not not satisfying it. Presently Wave has evolved to be like it is not through choice, but because your hand is forced - it MUST be a centralised server, it MUST enforce wave ownership, etc. I would prefer these to be choices we make rather than being dictated to by inadequate mathematics. I would be willing to bet that Google really, really want to satisfy TP2. Perhaps someone with @google.com in their email address can offer some insights in this regard. Cheers, Dan On Feb 26, 4:35 am, Torben Weis <[email protected]> wrote: > Tad, I fully agree. > > TP2 leads us to the area of peer-to-peer. My team at University has spent > the last three years on solving some security problems that arise when > running an MMOG like WoW on a peer-to-peer system without any central > authority. The algorithms are very complex and many of them eat up a decent > amount of bandwidth. It will take some additional research years to reach a > level of trust comparable to that of a centralized MMOG. > > Based on this experience, I cannot imagine that Wave (which is not research, > but a productive system) will be ported to TP2. However, from a scientific > point of view it might be interesting to explore the potential benefits of a > TP2-based wave. > > Greetings > Torben > > 2010/2/25 Tad Glines <[email protected]> > > > > > > > There's been some discussion about wave and how things would be much better > > if wave supported TP2. > > > Currently all deltas must be sent to the wavelet host, or owner, for > > transformation before the delta can be propagated to all other wavelet > > readers. This means that Wave doesn't support the OT property TP2. If wave > > supported TP2, then there would be no need for a wavelet "owner" and each > > server could arrive at the consistent wavelet state independent of each > > other. Put another way: without TP2, the wavelet "owner" is the single point > > of failure. With TP2, there is no single point of failure, and no "owner". > > And there's the problem, no owner means no control. > > > In order for wave to be successful there needs to be a wavelet "owner". The > > "owner" can enforce schemas and enforce access control policies. If wave > > supported TP2, then it would be impossible for a server to prevent a another > > server from writing to the wavelet. One could expect all the servers to > > "play nice together" but there is no way to explicitly enforce access > > control policies in a TP2 environment when the servers are owned and > > operated by separate entities. > > > -Tad > > > -- > > 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%2bunsubscr...@goog > > legroups.com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en. > > -- > --------------------------- > Prof. Torben Weis > Universitaet Duisburg-Essen > [email protected] -- 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.
