On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Summers Pittman <supittma@redhat.com> wrote:

On 01/28/2014 11:41 AM, Lucas Holmquist wrote:
> On Jan 28, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Summers Pittman <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@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 01/28/2014 10:48 AM, Lucas Holmquist 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"
>>>> 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?
>
> not sure how i feel about using "push"( APNS, GCM, SimplePush ) stuff for sync.
> then we are relying on these 3rd party services,

That is a valid concern.

I think making our entire sync product based on polling is a bad thing.
(Battery, performance, etc etc etc).
I think making sync based on TCP sockets/WebSockets/SockJS is a good
thing, but it is past 1.0

regarding 1.0 - I am not even sure what that version should be done; but for me (personal thought),

I (again, personally) have serious doubts that the first sync offerings (March/April?) will be the ones labeled as '1.0.0';