[aerogear-dev] Data Sync Thoughts

[Matthias Wessendorf]

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 7:24 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.
>

I agree on the decoupling. That's pretty much what the iOS lib does today:
Only dependency is AFNetworking;
The JS bits are similar, nothing is weaved into the existing APIs there as
well



> This was my main concern when I was saying: "focus on the datamodel
> first, then the update protocol, then...."
>

I think we somewhat agreed already on a document based model, now it looks
like several POCs are build to integrate w/ our sync-server bits



>
> 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.
>


So, what will the scope be? And will there be a 1.0 ?
I am not really sure that we will have a 1.0.0 in the next few month.

-Matthias


> 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
>



-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/attachments/20140129/d0c6c68b/attachment.html