[John B - I wasn't sure where else it would be appropriate to ask this
question, but please forward on anywhere you think it appropriate]
There are many things about Wave and WIAB that I would like to see
improved / changed, but based on my readings I've been content with the
TP1 OT approach chosen by google (not that I'm even close to an expert)
- even if the WIAB implementation would benefit from some love.
But one of the things mentioned in the recent wave-forward hangout was
the weakness in Wave's OT implementation for a required canonical
version of a given wave (providing absolute ordering of changesets).
Specifically, this effectively prevents 3 party P2P messaging where
there isn't guaranteed to be that one canonical ordering. My
understanding is that Joseph is playing with some alternative OT
algorithms that are TP2, and therefore don't require arbitration of
changeset order. This was specifically called out as an advantage to
support P2P messaging and running the full stack on a phone.
That got me thinking - why would you want to do that? What are the
benefits of P2P messaging, and are there other reasons to need TP2?
Most of the messaging and collaboration systems I could think of are
client-server (some with federated servers) and Wave/WIAB support this
with TP1. Most networked phone apps that I'm aware of are also
client/server, and at first glance this seems a good thing - it makes
addressing easier and avoids issues with intermittent connectivity. The
ability to have a simple "wavelike" server (and detached clients)
I suspect I'm missing something, and I wondered if I'm alone?
My understanding is that technical interop between the various wave-like
communities will need us to use the same OT alogrithm (eventually), so
clarity on the pros/cons of keeping or changing the wave OT approach
would be a good first step in that direction!
Dave
