3:22 p.m.
Ideally our framework would be highly configurable:
- collision detection and resolution at the row/tuple/object-level
- or at the column/property level
- sync-synchronization - block the user thread
- async-synchronization - perform on a "background" thread
- utilization push notifications to cause the client-app to walk up and request the
changes
It is relatively rare to have a collision (two users or two batch processes) updating the
same record simultaneously but it is a use case that should be addressed. There was one
technology I worked with in the past that took a hash of the before "image" of
the record and submit that back with the deltas - relatively small over-the-wire packet
and allowed easy detection to see if another data element changed.
On Oct 10, 2012, at 12:53 PM, Sébastien Blanc wrote:
I think we should also take a look at the "slowly changing
dimension " theories :
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slowly_changing_dimension#
In particularly type VI
Envoyé de mon iPhone
Le Oct 10, 2012 à 18:38, Douglas Campos <qmx(a)qmx.me> a écrit :
>
> On Oct 10, 2012, at 1:07 PM, Sébastien Blanc wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> Really interesting. I'm also thinking a lot about the data synch process and
I'm glad to see that your ideas are pretty much the same as me.
>> But great challenges to come like dealing multiple edits of the same record by
different clients :)
> One strategy that I've seen in the wild is having smaller records, (a contact
entity could potentially have a timestamp for each field, to aid during the merge)
>
> I know it's pretty aggressive and wasteful - just food for thought
>
>> About triggering the synch process we could start a POC with the
"online" event on the client side, that could spawn a webwork script taking care
of the synch process.
>> On the server side, we have to manage a sort of queue maintaining the state of
the "dirty" records on which the clients can subscribe (and being noticed by
push events , web sockets etc ...) , very exciting stuff to come.
>>
>> Seb
>> Envoyé de mon iPhone
>>
>> Le Oct 10, 2012 à 17:31, Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com> a écrit :
>>
>>> Hey all,
>>>
>>> Just wanted to let you know what I am working on right now. It is very early
but Matthias loves e-mail so I thought I would throw this out there.
>>>
>>> Basically, right now all I am doing is working on keeping track of the status
of data in DataManager. Assuming a new dataSync setting is set to true, these are the
things I am planning.
>>>
>>> • New record is added to store, status is set to NEW and a UUID is
generated
>>> • Record is updated, status is set to MODIFIED
>>> • Record is removed, status is set to REMOVED (data is not actually
removed, future will need to keep storage limits in mind)
>>> • Add a new sync method that will run through the data and sync with the
server. Assumes client is data of record for now during development until we can determine
a strategy for informing the client how the server tracks data status and how it should be
informed that this data is being synced
>>> • This brings us back to the discussion about sending metadata to the
client on first app load. That metadata could inform the client of the sync strategy
>>>
>>> There's probably more to this but these are my original thoughts right
now.
>>>
>>> Kris
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
> -- qmx
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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