On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Daniel Paull <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Feb 22, 6:50 pm, Jochen Bekmann <[email protected]> wrote: > >> This is not a lost battle, I have taken up the debate with my >> colleagues to add back (we did have one at some point) such a token. >> We have not had time to fully debate this issue, but there is a fair >> chance that we'll address this in the next revision. > > I asked in another thread, "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 think this is an important question to answer as you seem to be > struggling with concepts that are well understood in the literature. > I would like to understand why so much time is being spent debating > something which should be quite obvious. > > Perhaps that debate should be carried out in a public forum? After > all, we are working together right? > >> Yes, the protocol is more complicated with a commit notice. > > Not just complicated, but I think dangerous and incorrect (Torben made > good comments to this effect). Perhaps it would be easier to develop > algorithms that satisfy TP2 than to correctly implement such horrid > hacks as this commit notice. > > If you satisfied TP2, latency would not be an issue as both clients > and servers can relay operations to peers as quickly as possible, even > if they have not been persisted. Durability is not a big concern for > an OT system that satisfies TP2 as you can always retrieve operations > that you lose (due to a crash or what not) from peers. Of course, > this big benefit of OT is not realised by Wave. > >> Because >> we've made an emphasis on low latency we felt the trade-off was >> acceptable. > > The trade off was swapping a less interactive protocol for a clearly > broken one. Not a good trade in my opinion. If you really want low > latency, solve the TP2 puzzle.
Hi Dan, We did a survey of the OT literature and read a number of papers in the area, including those written by Sun. Alex Mah, who's one of the developers on our team who knows the OT algorithm best, will be commenting on the applicability of TP2 to our protocol in the separate thread which has started up around this. Public debate is good, and we hope it will be beneficial for everyone involved: it allows us to share the motivation behind the decisions we made, and hopefully it clarifies some technical issues ahead of us writing up a detailed protocol description of what has already been implemented and will be released to open source. It's possible we'll change parts of the protocol in future, and a public debate on what we release will be good to inform such decisions. regards, Jochen -- 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.
