[aerogear-dev] Data Sync Thoughts

[Lucas Holmquist]

On Jan 28, 2014, at 1:24 PM, Douglas Campos <qmx at qmx.me> wrote:

> 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.
my initial stab at the JS lib for data sync had no dependency on the other parts, ( expect for maybe Notifier  )

the idea is to be able to have the "sync" lib, "mixin"  with DataManager,



> 
> 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 at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> 
> -- 
> qmx
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev