On Feb 26, 8:16 pm, Alexandre Mah <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2/26/10, chiang <[email protected]> wrote: > 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,
Right in all regards except, perhaps, when you say "the server's data". Isn't it the clients data, or at least the user's data? > which seems (to me, at least) not to be such a > foolproof way to improve reliability of the server's data. It makes it neither more or less foolproof. If the server can be fooled when a client resends operations, it sure could have been fooled in the same manner when the operation was originally sent. What is your aversion to having clients assist the server in recovering from a fault? After all, if I still have a copy of *my* data, why can't I resend it to the server when it loses it? Redundancy rocks. Wave should get some. Dan -- 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.
