[aerogear-dev] Data Sync Thoughts

Summers Pittman supittma at redhat.com
Wed Jan 29 09:50:50 EST 2014


On Wed 29 Jan 2014 09:24:46 AM EST, Douglas Campos wrote:
> 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

Even in that scenario Drop Box is still pushing a message to a listener 
which wakes your code up to the fact there is new data.

>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>
>




More information about the aerogear-dev mailing list