Jonathan Tan <jonathanta...@google.com> writes: > I see the semantics as "don't write what you already have", where > "have" means what you have in local storage, but if you extend "have" > to what upstream has, then yes, you're right that this changes > (ignoring shallow clones). > > This does remove a resistance that we have against hash collision (in > that normally we would have the correct object for a given hash and > can resist other servers trying to introduce a wrong object, but now > that is no longer the case), but I think it's better than consulting > the hook whenever you want to write anything (which is also a change > in semantics in that you're consulting an external source whenever > you're writing an object, besides the performance implications).
As long as the above pros-and-cons analysis is understood and we are striking a balance between performance and strictness with such an understanding of the implications, I am perfectly fine with the proposal. That is why my comment has never been "I think that is wrong" but consistently was "I wonder if that is a good thing." Thanks.
