> > 2) Trivial "recovery" algorithms as the server can, after a rollback, > > get operations back from clients > > Shifting the responsibility for reliability from a trusted server to > other clients seems like a questionable solution. I think reliably > storing the server's data shouldn't be the job of clients. > Is it really about shifting responsibility for reliability here? The problem with not doing OT on the client as well, when a "recovery" is necessary, is wave will be rolled back to the latest version the wave server stores, but can be without the latest changes from the client. This means that my effort will be lost, however much it is. If OT is done on the client, the user can also work on a wave offline, commit the changes when he's back online again, and the wave will still converge, I think.
> > 4) Intention preservation that actually preserves intent. > > I'm not sure I know what you mean here. Every multi-party algorithm Could this be related to the above as well? cheers, Chiang -- 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.
