On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Michael MacFadden <michael.macfad...@gmail.com> wrote: > There are pros and cons to doing OT in a client-server or P2P manner. > Googles view was that if you have potentially hundreds or thousands of > collaborators, then in a P2P mode you wind up with state vectors, vector > clocks, or context vectors that are just to large. Each peer has to track > the state of each other client. Operations typically have a context > vector attached to them. In this case you have context vectors, and state > tables that grow out of hand. Google chose to avoid this by using a > client server OT model.
Nobody had heard of OT when wave was conceived - nobody really had the expertise to build a scalable system that worked over P2P. It was a pragmatic decision rather than some clever design choice. You're right about vector clocks and so on. How do you feel about copying git and hashing operations? -J
