Dan, Break it down for me dude, remember I'm just a programmer. TP2 means?
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Daniel Paull <[email protected]> wrote: > Going to a peer-to-peer OT system (synonymous with vector clocks and > satisfying TP2) does not imply chaos. Different nodes in the network > can adopt roles and, say, be authoritative. I see the current Wave > topology as one possible configuration of a peer-to-peer OT system. > > Let me recap - the upside is that document ownership *can* be > distributed, but the upside is also that *ownership* is logical > concept layered on top of OT. Hang on, there's no downside there. > >> In short, I'm not completely sold that we can implement a vector clock >> based OT for federation and have it stable in the face of both bugs >> and future feature requests. > > That depend on who you refer to as "we"... The first hurdle is > satisfying TP2. > > > Cheers, > > Dan > > > On Jan 31, 4:53 pm, Brett Morgan <[email protected]> wrote: >> Dan, >> >> Swapping over to a vector clock based OT for federation has both >> upsides and downsides. The upside is that the document ownership is >> distributed. The downside is that the document ownership is >> distributed. >> >> If everyone can agree up front what the valid modifications to a >> document are, including such fun and games as access control lists and >> the like, and everyone implements the same rules, exactly, then maybe >> it will work. One misstep and we have failure to converge nightmares >> that require debugging across multiple hosts. >> >> On the flip side, by having exactly one master, then all the rules >> around acceptable edits only have to live in one place, and can be >> changed both on a document by document basis, and over time, enabling >> system growth and change. The cost of this adaptability to change is >> that if a host disappears, the conversations that host was hosting are >> now toast. >> >> In short, I'm not completely sold that we can implement a vector clock >> based OT for federation and have it stable in the face of both bugs >> and future feature requests. >> >> brett >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Daniel Paull <[email protected]> wrote: >> > It's more than just an option - it's the only clear path forward. >> > Hopefully Dan Peterson and crew understand that. >> >> > Cheers, >> >> > Dan >> >> > On Jan 31, 12:55 pm, Brett Morgan <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Dan, >> >> >> An option is to use a variant of OT that uses a vector clock instead >> >> of the current single master OT. >> >> >> The fun thing would be that using a vector clock OT would even help >> >> out in the construction of fault tolerant Wave hosts, instead of >> >> having single points of failure inside the data center. >> >> >> brett >> >> >> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:45 AM, Dan Peterson <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> > Agreed. This is an area I've been thinking about lately -- the electing >> >> > a >> >> > new master scheme is appealing, but then what do you do when the >> >> > original >> >> > master returns to the rest of the network (e.g. the uplink that was >> >> > severed >> >> > is restored, then there'd be 2 servers that think they are master)? >> >> > As an alternative scenario, I suppose the wave client UI could >> >> > encourage a >> >> > "fork" of the wave conversation -- copying the latest version of the >> >> > contents into a new wavelet on the non-dead wave provider. Of course, >> >> > forks >> >> > are effectively duplicate content, so not so ideal. >> >> > -Dan >> >> >> > On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:36 AM, Torben Weis <[email protected]> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> I fear it is not as easy as assigning it to missing FedOne features. >> >> >> If the master wave server breaks you need some other server to take >> >> >> over. But the domain name of the broken server is encoded in the >> >> >> wavelet >> >> >> URIs which are encoded (i.e. signed and hashed) inside the deltas. >> >> >> Thus, you >> >> >> cannot simply replace the wave server without taking care of the >> >> >> cryptographic problems. >> >> >> Even if this is dealt with, how do you efficiently vote on a new master >> >> >> server? It must not happen that at any time there is doubt about the >> >> >> master >> >> >> server (i.e. several clients deem different servers to be the master). >> >> >> Wave's OT cannot handle such a scenario. There are peer-to-peer OT >> >> >> concepts >> >> >> which can deal with it, but wave does not currently. >> >> >> I think this is a really interesting research question, but the >> >> >> solution >> >> >> will not be all too easy. >> >> >> This being said, even normal federation is complex enough :-) >> >> >> Cheers >> >> >> Torben >> >> >> 2010/1/29 Mickaël Rémond <[email protected]> >> >> >> >>> Hello, >> >> >> >>> Le 29 janv. 2010 à 13:17, chiang a écrit : >> >> >> >>> > Hi all, >> >> >> >>> > This could already have been a known deficiency in the federation >> >> >>> > architecture, but I would like to enquire if it is by design that we >> >> >>> > have authoritative or master wave servers for a particular wave? As >> >> >>> > I've just found out that if the Fedone wave server (which hosts a >> >> >>> > master copy of my initiating wave) goes down or losses all the >> >> >>> > waves, >> >> >>> > the Fedone wave server does not recover the wave from wavesandbox, >> >> >>> > which also has a copy of the wave. I initially thought wave servers >> >> >>> > federation is supposed to be scalable, and resilient... >> >> >> >>> Fedone is an example implementation, not a production ready wave >> >> >>> server. >> >> >>> For example, it still miss the storage engine, is not clustered etc. >> >> >>> So this limitation is not by design but simply a not-yet-implemented >> >> >>> feature. >> >> >> >>> Having an authoritative server for every wave seems a good and needed >> >> >>> approach for the Wave protocol itself. >> >> >> >>> -- >> >> >>> Mickaël Rémond >> >> >>> http://www.process-one.net/ >> >> >> >>> -- >> >> >>> 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. >> >> >> > -- >> >> > 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. >> >> >> -- >> >> Brett Morganhttp://domesticmouse.livejournal.com/ >> >> > -- >> > 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 >> > athttp://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en. >> >> -- >> Brett Morganhttp://domesticmouse.livejournal.com/ > > -- > 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. > > -- Brett Morgan http://domesticmouse.livejournal.com/ -- 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.
