[aerogear-dev] Data Sync Thoughts
Summers Pittman
supittma at redhat.com
Wed Jan 29 09:50:50 EST 2014
On Wed 29 Jan 2014 09:24:46 AM EST, Douglas Campos wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 09:14:20AM -0500, Summers Pittman wrote:
>> On 01/29/2014 07:43 AM, Bruno Oliveira wrote:
>>> My 2 non technical cents, I really think we should separate "push" from
>>> "sync" and integrate later, bet on simple. In my opinion we are just
>>> adding one more level of complexity.
>>>
>>> For example: would be perfect to add digital signatures, encrypted data
>>> for that storage and all the sick things from security. But that would add
>>> an extra level of complexity which would lead us to several months of
>>> development.
>>>
>>> Is just my opinion, but if you guys think that we REALLY need Push, MVP or
>>> whatever atm, that's fine.
>> Then what we are talking about is no longer sync. It is revision control.
>
> Well, what if I the developer want to download the files from Dropbox
> API and do the sync locally? (YNAB app works like this)
>
> It still is sync, at least from my POV
Even in that scenario Drop Box is still pushing a message to a listener
which wakes your code up to the fact there is new data.
>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 6:03 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew at apache.org
>>> <mailto:matzew at apache.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Summers Pittman
>>> <supittma at redhat.com <mailto:supittma at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01/28/2014 11:11 AM, Corinne Krych wrote:
>>>> I think we still need the synchronisation mode in pull mode.
>>>>
>>>> How are we going to deal with this use case with simple push:
>>>> UserA is offline update some data, then switch off his phone
>>>> Some other users update data
>>>> UserA open his app, he has missed some push notifications but
>>>> still want to sync his app.
>>> That is the magic of Push systems. He gets the messages when
>>> he comes online.
>>>
>>> Device A and B and Server have data with a checksum of 42.
>>> Device A goes offline.
>>> Device A changes its data and has a checksum of 64.
>>> Device B changes its data and has a checksum of 192.
>>> Device B sends the expected server checksum of 42 and its new
>>> data to the server.
>>> Server accepts B's Data, updates its checksum to 192, and
>>> sends a message to all Devices ( in this case just A)
>>>
>>>
>>> sending the data does not work via 'mobile push' - we need
>>> something like 'real-time' for that sending;
>>>
>>>
>>> Device B and Server go on a long date, but things don't work
>>> out and they end up splitting the check 50/50. Device B is
>>> annoyed because she only got a salad but Server got the Surf
>>> and Turf.
>>>
>>> Device A comes online and receives a message from the server.
>>> Device A notices the server's checksum data is a change from
>>> 42 -> 192 and not 42 -> 64. Thus its copy is out of sync and
>>> fires a message to the User of Device A to resolve the data.
>>> User A resolves the data and Device A sends the merged data to
>>> the server.
>>> Device B gets a message of new data and updates to what the
>>> server has.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> ++
>>>> Corinne
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 28 January 2014 17:01, Summers Pittman
>>>> <supittma at redhat.com <mailto:supittma at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 01/28/2014 10:58 AM, Lucas Holmquist wrote:
>>>> > On Jan 28, 2014, at 10:54 AM, Summers Pittman
>>>> <supittma at redhat.com <mailto:supittma at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On 01/28/2014 10:48 AM, Lucas Holmquist wrote:
>>>> >>> On Jan 28, 2014, at 10:30 AM, 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?
>>>> >>> 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.
>>>> >>> i thought for a 1.0 we weren't thinking about "realtime"
>>>> >> When I hear realtime I think sub 100 ms updates to all
>>>> clients. (think
>>>> >> gaming)
>>>> >>
>>>> >> What I thought we were going for was something closer
>>>> to email. The
>>>> >> data gets changed and at some point in the future the
>>>> client knows. More
>>>> >> specifically, the thing the ONE thing that makes sync
>>>> special is it is a
>>>> >> push instead of poll implementation.
>>>> > this makes sense, but i guess it would be push when
>>>> available. thinking web and crappy web socket support(
>>>> dang you carriers )
>>>> Right. I'm not saying lets do something complicated.
>>>> I'm saying lets
>>>> use GCM, iOS CM, and simple push to send notifications to
>>>> tell the
>>>> client something. In simplePush case it is "this data
>>>> changed, get the
>>>> new stuff and update yourself". In Android and iOS case
>>>> it may be that
>>>> or it may be "here is new data".
>>>>
>>>> In general, I am fine for getting a message saying
>>>> something like
>>>> Documents/Schedules/1/${revision}. Then I can check my
>>>> revisions, fetch
>>>> data if necessary, update my local data, and send any
>>>> updates. That
>>>> SHOULD (I think) be doable with simplepush as well right?
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >>>> 4. AG Synchronizer sends sync messages using Pipes
>>>> >>>> 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
>>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>> 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
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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 <mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> --
>>> "The measure of a man is what he does with power" - Plato
>>> -
>>> @abstractj
>>> -
>>> Volenti Nihil Difficile
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
>
More information about the aerogear-dev
mailing list