On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui@redhat.com> wrote:

On Jan 28, 2014, at 10:30 AM, Summers Pittman <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"

that is my impression as well, talking to Dan on IRC;

ATM all is polling, but the sync-server will be cable of doing WebSocket/SockJS, so "connected" clients, can sync.

Push should be really used for 'wake-up', instead of changing real information; Also SimplePush clients could not even integrate here (the protocol just uses version (or timestamps)

> 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@lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
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