What happens when a client on a mobile device loses its connection for
a short period of time and then reconnects?
The edits/patches/operations on the
client would be stacked up and
later when an connection is available that stack of
edits/patches/operations would be sent to the server.
What if load balancing cause the client to reconnect to a different
process in the cluster?
If we allow for different types of what we currently call a
to be pluggable, then it would be possible for that client to
reconnect to a different instance with the assumption here that the
underlying datastore is distributed.
BTW, please tell me if the whole purpose of AeroGear's Data Sync
feature is to satisfy this and only this scenario. If so, then I apologize for being a
No, it is not the only scenario. We want to satisfy as many scenarios
as possible, but we also have to start somewhere and preferable start
small and build out from there. In the roadmap, we outlined as the
first steps what is called conflict resolution. This is what our
initial focus will be on and it will require minimal server side
changes to existing server application (no server side state for
clients). Our hope is that doing this might gain us some early
adopters. This does not rule out that this could not be evolve into
something like you've described in you email above, more about this
If the client goes offline and then back online, the Data Sync
functionality in the SDK would figure out which of the local entities the client has
changed, and request from the server the latest revisions for each of them. Data Sync then
merges the local changes onto the latest revisions (perhaps asking the user to manually
resolve anything that cannot be automatically resolved), computes the new effective
changes, and then sends a single batch request to the server to apply them. Some, all or
none changes are accepted, and likely the application then has to decide whether to
continue the process again, revert to the server’s versions, etc.
simliar to what we have discussed as conflict resolution
in the Data Sync roadmap. It differs somewhat, like we don't specify
anything with regard to batches as the goal it to limit the changes
need for existing server implementations, in that the server only
detects a conflict and does not try to apply any effective
changes/operations/patches but instead works with complete
The SDK would also make use of subscriptions/notifications so that it
can be told immediately when entities are changed.
This is considered as a later
part of conflict resolution where we
notifications are planned to be used.
The kinds of requests needed to support data sync in this scenario are
fairly basic, so the server doesn’t have to be that complicated. Best of all, the server
is not required to maintain any client-specific state.
This does sound like what we
are trying to do with the conflict
resolution approach. I know that it is even more basic than what you
have described here but we could extend the roadmap to include such
I think there will be use cases for both the conflict resolution and
the data sync approaches and users that might be quite happy with
conflict resolution. I think it would make sense to split the two
roadmaps/specs into separate ones. At the moment it looks, and was the
original idea, that this would involve into the "real-time" datasync
solution. But have these separate would hopefully make this clear that
these are independent and can evolve independently.
Does this sound alright with everyone?
On 5 September 2014 20:32, Randall Hauch <rhauch(a)redhat.com> wrote:
This does sounds quite interesting, Lukáš. If AeroGear uses
Synchronization, this approach might make it more efficient for the server
to implement the behavior.
But I’m still bothered by the thought that AeroGear’s Data Sync feature
uses any algorithm that requires the server to maintain client-specific
First of all, servers that maintain no client state across requests will
*always* scale much better than servers that maintain client-specific state
across requests. Maintaining client-specific state requires extra work,
consumes more memory, and complicates clustering, failover, and fault
Secondly, if a server is maintaining client-specific state, how long does
that client state have to be maintained before assuming the client is no
longer there? What happens when a client on a mobile device loses its
connection for a short period of time and then reconnects? What if load
balancing cause the client to reconnect to a different process in the
cluster? Bottom line is that it adds quite a bit of complexity.
Finally, I completely understand the benefits of using Differential
Synchronization where many clients are collaborating on a single document.
That’s the “collaborative editor” scenario, and surely there are apps that
need this functionality. I’m just not convinced that this is the most
common use case. In fact, I think it’s relatively uncommon, and I don’t
think LiveOak will support it in the near term. (BTW, please tell me if the
whole purpose of AeroGear's Data Sync feature is to satisfy this and only
this scenario. If so, then I apologize for being a distraction.)
My understanding of the Data Sync feature, though, is that it is should be
applicable to other scenarios. IMO, the far more common scenario is:
- The server manages (many) millions of small entities, each of which
is a domain-specific aggregate JSON document. Examples of different kinds
of entities include: customers, books, insurance claims, catalog items,
restaurants, purchases, tasks, etc. A single customer entity would
aggregate most/all the information about the customer, including the name,
phone numbers, addresses, profile information, domain-specific privileges
(e.g., authorized to log issues or call support), etc. Note that these
aggregate entities do not correspond to the entities in a traditional
RDBMS/JPA/Hibernate app, where you’d have much finer-grained records
(separate tables for customer, customer addresses, customer phone numbers,
customer privileges, etc.).
- At any point in time there may be 1Ks or 10Ks of clients reading
dozens of documents/entities and sending changes to some of them (likely in
batch operations). IOW, any one document might be concurrently modified by
a relatively small number of clients.
I think it’s possible to support Data Sync in this scenario while
maintaining no client-specific state on the server (other than while
processing a single request).
The Data Sync functionality of the SDK used in the clients would work with
local persistence and enable the app to function online or offline. This
includes making it possible to edit entities and create new entities while
offline, though it does not matter to Data Sync which subset of entities is
persisted locally. If the client goes offline and then back online, the
Data Sync functionality in the SDK would figure out which of the local
entities the client has changed, and request from the server the latest
revisions for each of them. Data Sync then merges the local changes onto
the latest revisions (perhaps asking the user to manually resolve anything
that cannot be automatically resolved), computes the new effective changes,
and then sends a single batch request to the server to apply them. Some,
all or none changes are accepted, and likely the application then has to
decide whether to continue the process again, revert to the server’s
versions, etc. (The SDK would also make use of subscriptions/notifications
so that it can be told immediately when entities are changed.)
What the batch operations entail is dependent upon the needs of the client
app and capabilities of the server. If a server supports batch operations
that contain the entire entity, then the server will almost certainly need
to put revision identifiers in each entity sent to the client, so that when
the client sends back a modified representation entity, the server can tell
whether that document has since been modified by another client. If so, the
server might rely upon client preferences (see below) to know whether to
merge the changes (using a simple algorithm or more useful
application-specific logic), overwrite, or fail to update the entity.
On the other hand, the server might support batch operations with partial
updates, where the client only sends for each entity only the set of fields
that are to be changed or removed. Conflicts and merging with this approach
are easier and less-likely to be application specific, though client
preferences (see below) might still dictate whether or not to merge based
upon revision numbers. It also might make it easier for Data Sync, since
the SDK simply has to record for each modified entity only those modified
fields (no matter how long the client was offline). To keep the SDK simple,
a best practice might be to ensure clients always modify together those
fields that must be consistent. For example, in a contacts application, if
a user modifies the first name of a contact, the app might tell the SDK to
modify the first name and last name fields, even though the user didn’t
modify the last name. When synchronized, both the first name and last name
fields would be sent to the server as a single update. This helps ensure
that even when multiple clients are concurrently updating the same set of
fields to different values, the result of applying all of those changes
will exactly match the state as set by one of the clients.
It’s also likely that for batch operations to work well for many different
kinds of applications, the server may support multiple policies that
specify for a given batch operation the atomicity, consistency, and
isolation guarantees. One policy might ensure that the entire batch either
completely succeeds only when there are no revision conflicts, otherwise it
completely fails. Another policy might be eventually-consistent in the
sense that the changes in every batch operations will eventually be
applied, though this may require the server to have application-specific
conflict resolution logic. And there are policies that are somewhere
in-between. For example, imagine a server that supports “public”
collections whose entities can be read/updated by any user, and “private”
collections that expose only the entities that are readable and editable by
that user. The likelihood of a concurrent update conflict on a private
entity is quite small, since it’s possible only when different changes made
on different devices are submitted at exactly the same time. On the other
hand, the likelihood of a concurrent update conflict on a public entity is
much higher. The server may allow updates to both public and private
entities within a single batch operation, and a save policy that might
update all private entities atomically (they all succeed or they all fail)
while updates to *each* public entity is atomic (some might succeed while
others might fail).
Any given server will likely support only a few of these policies. But
either way, the server has to report back to the client the outcome of the
batch request: which entities were updated, which were not, and the reason
why each of the rejected updates failed (because other entity changes were
rejected, because of a conflict, etc.). The SDK’s Data Sync functionality
would use those results to know how to update the local persisted
representations, and to start trying to resolve any failures.
The kinds of requests needed to support data sync in this scenario are
fairly basic, so the server doesn’t have to be that complicated. Best of
all, the server is not required to maintain any client-specific state.
Thoughts? Am I way off-base?
On Sep 4, 2014, at 10:38 AM, Lukáš Fryč <lukas.fryc(a)gmail.com> wrote:
TL;DR: there are ways how to make the memory footprint of Differential
Synchronization (DS) very low; if we assume that JSON patches are
reversible and we create cumulative patches from series of individual
patches, we can use (smart, garbage-collactable) revision control for
storage of documents that server need to maintain.
I had an idea in my head that for couple of days as I was becoming
familiar with how Differential Synchronization (DS) works and studying
Dan's and Luke's impl.
I share the concern that Randall expressed in earlier thread - the DS in
its pure version doesn't scale for huge amount of users when connected to
Sure, the algorithm can be scaled trivially by adding new nodes that uses
very same algorithm as is used for client<->server. But that doesn't mean
it is something that we should do regularly to get more memory available.
Instead, I was thinking about limiting a memory that server needs to
maintain in any point in time.
In pure DS, server have to maintain all copies of documents that clients
ever requested. Even worse, it has to maintain two copies - "shadow" and
So, in worst case, 2 x N copies of document will be maintained by the
server for N clients.
The DS algorithm doesn't tell us how the "shadow" and "backup"
should be stored.
We can transparently plug in a storage that will be clever about how to
use "backups" and "shadow".
1) REVISION CONTROL
In order to limit a number of documents we need to maintain in server's
memory, we can come with a system where just last known state is remembered
in full version. Together with last known version, we remember also history
of the document for each revision as it was patched by clients.
But server doesn't have to maintain full history of the document, it
maintains just revisions that are known to its clients (that revision is
known by DS for each client out of the box).
2) GARBAGE COLLECTION
Server trivially knows what versions are mantained by client, so it can
get rid of those revisions that are no longer needed.
First, it can cut all the history that is older than the oldest version of
document throughout all its clients.
Secondly, it can accumulate the serious of patches between states so that
it doesn't have to maintain full history, but just revisions that is known
to any of those clients.
I've attached a picture for illustration of the revision control / garbage
collection, it does not illustrate algorithm itself (Dan did awesome job
describing DS here ).
In the attached diagram, you can see four clients with different revisions:
Client 1: revision X
Client 2: revision X+3
Client 3: revision X+3
Client 4: revision X+4
If any of the clients reaches server, server can reconstruct the document
(shadow and backup) for given client revision and the DS algorithm then can
operate as normally (that's why it is transparent from algorithmic point of
If server comes to garbage collection, it can scan through available
client revisions. As it identifies, that the oldest known revision is X, it
can remove patch for X-1 and less as they are no longer needed.
Later, it can even more optimize, and accumulate patches so that the only
information he knows is how to get to the revision for each participating
client. In the picture, he can compute cumulative patch for getting from
state X to state X+3, as X+1 and X+2 themselves are not needed.
(Patch accumulation is actually something that Google Wave does in its
Operational Transformation implementation, just there it is called
Then it comes to caching strategies, you can maintain caches of things
like last recently used revisions (they don't need to be computed each
time). You can store some documents and their revision history to the disk
(fully or partially), etc.
THE USE CASE:
1000 employees maintain one document - Contact List - on their smartphones
400 of those employees has mobile data plan, so they want to synchronize
almost immediately as they are notified about changes. The rest of the
devices is connected rather sparely.
If one employee changes data, 600 devices are notified about the change
immediately (some on data plan, some through Wifi, etc.) Those clients all
have version say X+3, because they are synchronized proactively.
These clients reach the server in say <10 seconds after that employee did
First client reaches server and ask for version X+3 (it probably is still
in the memory, but if it isn't, it is deconstructed and placed into MRU
cache). All of the others reaches the server and re-synchronize themselves
against the one copy of backup/shadow that is in the memory already.
The other clients will reach the server later, as they are connecting to
Wifi, say in 5 minutes to 24 hours. They will have even older versions,
such as X. Those clients will require more computation, but at the end the
server can resolve them and through their revisions out of the window.
At the end, there are clients that didn't connected for days, maybe months
- I suggest we don't actually use DS here and fallback to e.g. slow
synchronization (show me what you have, I will show you mine), because
maintaining full history for longer period of days may be too resource
Obviously, 1000 is not much, but this can scale to pretty decent numbers
if we use hybrid approach (fallback to other sync strategies if revision is
already forgotten by a server).
we still have to maintain all the document revisions, but practically it
won't happen :-)
1. patches are reversible (we are able to compute reverse patch for each
patch sent by client)
2. patches are cumulative (we are able to compute aggregated patch from
series of patches)
For 1, it seems many of JSON-patch libraries actually implement it (Java,
For 2, it again seems some libraries implement it and if not, we can
implement it or even use brute-force - compute a patch between two documents
It's not the only way how to make it scale, but it does solve the problem
pretty independently of the DS algorithm and still leaves the algorithm
clean and simple.
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev mailing list