12:24 p.m.
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 10:30:47AM -0500, Summers Pittman 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?
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.
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.)
The thing I have against all this is its curse and its blessing at the
same time. I prefer to ship small-ish tools that the developer can use
the way she wants instead of a full-blown-zomg-unicorns full-stack
solution.
Even the pipeline API requires some level of buy-in, and I really wish
our DataSync API to be as decoupled as possible from the other parts.
This was my main concern when I was saying: "focus on the datamodel
first, then the update protocol, then...."
If we start with a fully integrated solution, it will be awesome, if we
have buy-in from the developer. And we all know that things not
necessarily go this way with OSS projects, hence my kerfuffle against
increasing sync's scope for 1.0.
What's the MVP for the sync to be a good foundation for all the shiny
bits? That's the question I want to have a good answer for.
Thoughts? Tomatoes?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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