[aerogear-dev] Data Sync Thoughts

Wed Jan 29 03:49:30 EST 2014

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Summers Pittman <supittma at redhat.com>wrote:

>  On 01/29/2014 03:08 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
> Just out of curiosity, what other models are there?
>

some here, JPA integration:
https://github.com/edewit/sync-server/blob/master/src/main/java/org/jboss/aerogear/poc/Car.java#L15

> [Also I think it will be better to say metadata + object model instead of
> document.  Document is 1) very generic and 2) has very different
> definitions depending on what we are thinking]
>

Agree on "metadata + object model"

>
>
>
>
>>
>> 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 ?
>
> ^^ This.  One of the things we have been failing at doing (and failing
> hard) is defining a scope for sync.
>

>   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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing listaerogear-dev at lists.jboss.orghttps://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
>

-- 
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/20140129/91d0d79c/attachment-0001.html 