[aerogear-dev] Data Sync Thoughts

Summers Pittman supittma at redhat.com
Tue Jan 28 12:25:49 EST 2014 

On 01/28/2014 12:19 PM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Summers Pittman <supittma at redhat.com 
> <mailto:supittma at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 01/28/2014 11:41 AM, Lucas Holmquist wrote:
>     > On Jan 28, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Summers Pittman
>     <supittma at redhat.com <mailto:supittma at redhat.com>> wrote:
>     >
>     >> On 01/28/2014 10:58 AM, Lucas Holmquist wrote:
>     >>> On Jan 28, 2014, at 10:54 AM, Summers Pittman
>     <supittma at redhat.com <mailto:supittma at redhat.com>> wrote:
>     >>>
>     >>>> On 01/28/2014 10:48 AM, Lucas Holmquist wrote:
>     >>>>> On Jan 28, 2014, at 10:30 AM, Summers Pittman
>     <supittma at redhat.com <mailto:supittma at 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';
I think one of the minimum features for our first client release should 
have is push initiated synchronization.

This doesn't mean push based or real time, just a push message causes an 
update.

>
>     I think making our sync product demand proprietary technology is a bad
>     thing, but I don't know of a service which is as easy as APNS or
>     GCM for
>     iOS and Android devs.
>
>
>
>     >
>     >>>>>> 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 at lists.jboss.org
>     <mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>     >>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>     >>>>>> _______________________________________________
>     >>>>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>     >>>>>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>     <mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>     >>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>     >>>>> _______________________________________________
>     >>>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>     >>>>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>     <mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>     >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>     >>>> _______________________________________________
>     >>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>     >>>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>     <mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>     >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>     >>> _______________________________________________
>     >>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>     >>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>     >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>     >> _______________________________________________
>     >> aerogear-dev mailing list
>     >> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>     >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > aerogear-dev mailing list
>     > aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>     > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     aerogear-dev mailing list
>     aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:aerogear-dev at 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/attachments/20140128/e52406f3/attachment.html

More information about the aerogear-dev mailing list