On 2/26/10, chiang <[email protected]> wrote: >> > 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.
That is indeed how our Wave client currently works (and OT is done on the client). A user can be temporarily disconnected, work offline for a little while, and then have the changes committed when they're back online. TP2 is not needed for this to work (and in fact is not applicable to this scenario). I think you might have misinterpreted the scenario Daniel is describing. He's not describing the scenario where a client gets disconnected and then needs to transform operations when it reconnects (which we can already handle very easily and does not require TP2 at all). He's describing the case where the server loses its own data (which is sort of already catastrophic in itself). I believe what Daniel is suggesting (but please forgive me if I've got this wrong) is that we change Wave from being a client-server protocol to being something closer to a peer-to-peer protocol and let the clients share some of the responsibility of reliably storing the server's data, which seems (to me, at least) not to be such a foolproof way to improve reliability of the server's data. >> > 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. > > -- 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.
