[aerogear-dev] Data Sync Thoughts

[Summers Pittman]

On 01/28/2014 11:44 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Summers Pittman <supittma at redhat.com 
> <mailto:supittma at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 01/28/2014 09:36 AM, Lucas Holmquist wrote:
>     > yup, this is another Data Sync thread,
>     >
>     > >From a client side perspective, i have concerns that there is
>     still not a clear direction yet.
>     >
>     > I know there are multiple ideas floating around on what our
>     model should be,  i'm all for choice, but what about deciding on 1
>     model to get started with.  Then later once we have this nailed
>     down,  we can have other "adapters" with different models perhaps
>     All the data model is is an envelope of sync metadata around an object
>     right?
>
>     We also need to think about the API and server/client protocol as
>     well.
>
>     I think that for sync 1.0 we could focus on the following behavior (it
>     worked for my demos at least)
>
>     1.  We have a Sync factory similar to Pipeline, Authenticator,
>     Registrar, and KeyService.
>     2.  The Sync factory consumes/manages Synchronizer instances.
>     3.  AG Synchronizer listens for sync messages using UnifiedPush
>     endpoints.
>
>
> W/ "sync message" you mean something like a 'heads-up' from the server 
> it has something new, instead of the concrete delta/diff ?
>
>     4.  AG Synchronizer sends sync messages using Pipes
>
>
> Like: "server, my local copy changed!" ?
Or, more specifically, "Here is new data"
>
>     5.  AG Synchronizer holds local data in a store
>
>     6.  When AGSynchronizer gets a message it is responsible for updating
>     the Store and then notifying code listing for updates OR for notifying
>     the code that an error has occurred and needs to be addressed.
>
>     7.  When the developer updates data in the store, the synchronizer
>     should package that data and send it to the server.  The
>     synchronizer is
>     responsible for error handling, retrying, back-off, etc.
>
>     8.  We should include multiple synchronizer implementations to
>     deal with
>     multiple very simple use cases which involve legacy systems. (For
>     instance polling to load static data on a schedule.)
>
>     Thoughts? Tomatoes?
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > aerogear-dev mailing list
>     > aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>     > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     aerogear-dev mailing list
>     aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>     https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/attachments/20140128/c4eff223/attachment.html