Re: [aerogear-dev] Data Sync Thoughts

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

>> >> >> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 6:03 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org >> <mailto:matzew@apache.org>> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Summers Pittman >> <supittma(a)redhat.com <mailto:supittma@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(a)redhat.com <mailto:supittma@redhat.com>> wrote: >>> >>> On 01/28/2014 10:58 AM, Lucas Holmquist wrote: >>> > On Jan 28, 2014, at 10:54 AM, Summers Pittman >>> <supittma(a)redhat.com <mailto:supittma@redhat.com>> wrote: >>> > >>> >> On 01/28/2014 10:48 AM, Lucas Holmquist wrote: >>> >>> On Jan 28, 2014, at 10:30 AM, Summers Pittman >>> <supittma(a)redhat.com <mailto:supittma@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(a)lists.jboss.org >>> <mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org> >>> >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>>> aerogear-dev mailing list >>> >>>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> <mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org> >>> >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> aerogear-dev mailing list >>> >>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> <mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org> >>> >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> aerogear-dev mailing list >>> >> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> <mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org> >>> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > aerogear-dev mailing list >>> > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> <mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org> >>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> aerogear-dev mailing list >>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> <mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org> >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> aerogear-dev mailing list >>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org> >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> aerogear-dev mailing list >> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:aerogear-dev@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(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:aerogear-dev@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(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > > _______________________________________________ > aerogear-dev mailing list > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev