[aerogear-dev] Data Sync Thoughts
Douglas Campos
qmx at qmx.me
Wed Jan 29 09:24:46 EST 2014
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 09:14:20AM -0500, Summers Pittman wrote:
> On 01/29/2014 07:43 AM, Bruno Oliveira wrote:
> >My 2 non technical cents, I really think we should separate "push" from
> >"sync" and integrate later, bet on simple. In my opinion we are just
> >adding one more level of complexity.
> >
> >For example: would be perfect to add digital signatures, encrypted data
> >for that storage and all the sick things from security. But that would add
> >an extra level of complexity which would lead us to several months of
> >development.
> >
> >Is just my opinion, but if you guys think that we REALLY need Push, MVP or
> >whatever atm, that's fine.
> Then what we are talking about is no longer sync. It is revision control.
Well, what if I the developer want to download the files from Dropbox
API and do the sync locally? (YNAB app works like this)
It still is sync, at least from my POV
> >
> >
> >On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 6:03 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew at apache.org
> ><mailto:matzew at apache.org>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Summers Pittman
> > <supittma at redhat.com <mailto:supittma at redhat.com>> wrote:
> >
> > On 01/28/2014 11:11 AM, Corinne Krych wrote:
> >> I think we still need the synchronisation mode in pull mode.
> >>
> >> How are we going to deal with this use case with simple push:
> >> UserA is offline update some data, then switch off his phone
> >> Some other users update data
> >> UserA open his app, he has missed some push notifications but
> >> still want to sync his app.
> > That is the magic of Push systems. He gets the messages when
> > he comes online.
> >
> > Device A and B and Server have data with a checksum of 42.
> > Device A goes offline.
> > Device A changes its data and has a checksum of 64.
> > Device B changes its data and has a checksum of 192.
> > Device B sends the expected server checksum of 42 and its new
> > data to the server.
> > Server accepts B's Data, updates its checksum to 192, and
> > sends a message to all Devices ( in this case just A)
> >
> >
> > sending the data does not work via 'mobile push' - we need
> > something like 'real-time' for that sending;
> >
> >
> > Device B and Server go on a long date, but things don't work
> > out and they end up splitting the check 50/50. Device B is
> > annoyed because she only got a salad but Server got the Surf
> > and Turf.
> >
> > Device A comes online and receives a message from the server.
> > Device A notices the server's checksum data is a change from
> > 42 -> 192 and not 42 -> 64. Thus its copy is out of sync and
> > fires a message to the User of Device A to resolve the data.
> > User A resolves the data and Device A sends the merged data to
> > the server.
> > Device B gets a message of new data and updates to what the
> > server has.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> ++
> >> Corinne
> >>
> >>
> >> On 28 January 2014 17:01, 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?
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>>> 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 <mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >
> >--
> >"The measure of a man is what he does with power" - Plato
> >-
> >@abstractj
> >-
> >Volenti Nihil Difficile
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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
More information about the aerogear-dev
mailing list