Hi Patrik,
Without OT (WOOT) is mentioned on the Wikipedia OT article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_transformation#Critique_of_OT
The reference to their paper (as shown on Wikipedia) is:
http://hal.inria.fr/inria-00071240/en/
Dealing with the complexity of OT by not using OT is what WOOT is all
about, which seems relevant to this thread of discussion.
Cheers,
Dan
On Aug 7, 10:13 pm, Patrick Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On 2010-08-07 14:01 UTC Daniel Paull wrote:
>
> > Without OT - is that meant to be a reference to Oster and Imine's
> > work? Or am I giving you too much credit?
>
> I have never heard of their work, so yes, you're most certainly giving me too
> much credit ;)
>
> Again: Ian Roughley proposed (maybe) moving away from OT - at least that's how
> I understood his mail - and I was then just thinking aloud whether that
> wouldn't be similar to current VCS protocols.
>
> Patrick.
>
> --
> Key ID: 0x86E346D4 http://patrick-nagel.net/key.asc
> Fingerprint: 7745 E1BE FA8B FBAD 76AB 2BFC C981 E686 86E3 46D4
>
> signature.asc
> < 1KViewDownload
--
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.
