On Feb 26, 1:16 pm, Alexandre Mah <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
This is getting confusing now, well for me at least and it doesn't help when I do not know TP2 well enough. I think I can see where Daniel is coming from, on getting operations back from clients after the server done a rollback. But here you are telling me that Google Wave (at least the wavesandbox or preview version do OT on client which I know) can already handle this. So what exactly is different between your implementation and TP2. And what type of OT is done on Google Wave client currently? Hope you understand as I have no insight into what Google Wave has implemented. 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.
