Bruno, You are not correct. You would still be able to read the wave, but you may not be able to edit it. Each wave server that is federating a wave gets a copy of the wave. However, I believe that only one wave server is considered the authoritative server for a given wave. If that server is down, I think you may not be able to edit the way.
However, this has more to do with the federation piece that the OT between the server and the clients. This is where a hybrid approach might be useful. Basically, the servers are arranged in a P2P mode. ~Michael On 6/11/13 10:00 PM, "Bruno Gonzalez (aka stenyak)" <sten...@gmail.com> wrote: >My 0.02€ on this: > >Currently, if hotmail goes down, I can still read the emails since my >account server is gmail. From what I see, current wiab does not handle >this >case, meaning that if hotwave is down, gwave won't let me read the hotwave >waves i'm a participant of. Is this correct? If so, that's the main point >I >see in favour of pursuing a P2P version of WiaB from my pov. And of >course, >we would get the rest of goodies of a p2p system as a bonus. > >That said, I'd be wary of replacing a 300k LOC codebase with a new >version, >when we are barely managing to maintain the existing code. But maybe the >current WiaB codebase is so obfuscated (from the point of view of an >average coder anyway ;-)), that a new version could be made simpler, and >therefore be able to attract an interest that current WiaB codebase is >unable to. > >In any case, I wonder if making current wiab *way* more easily federable >would in practice equate to a p2p version of wiab. I.e. modify WiaB so >that, in the future, any luser can "aptitude install wiab" and have a >federated server+client of wave, that can connect to other servers without >any further configuration (or extremely little configuration at least; >think BittorrentSync levels of usability, for example). Is it technically >possible to make wiab work like a P2P network, or are federation/OT/... >protocols simply not able to scale like that? > > >On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Dave <w...@glark.co.uk> wrote: > >> Cool. Thanks Michael. >> >> I guess the reason I'm keen to understand the pros/cons is because it >> looks as though we're heading to a point where the wave community needs >>to >> figure out the direction for Apache wave and the wiab codebase (within >> appropriate [DISCUSS] and [VOTE] threads of course). Probably as part of >> the larger conversation that John Blossom started. >> >> I'm beginning to think we're talking about two discrete directions: >> >> 1) The wave OT or protocol are broken & not fit for purpose. We should >> implement different OT and / or protocol which is (likely) incompatible >> with the existing implementations. Potentially this could involve >>junking >> the current wiab codebase, and implementing a new wave like platform >> (potentially on top of existing non-wiab code). >> >> 2) Wave OT and protocol are good-enough for our immediate / mid-term >> desires, but the wiab implementations could be stronger. We want to >>focus >> on expanding the ecosystem - enabling different clients, simplifying >> federation, tidying the codebase. I.e. convert what we've got into a >>useful >> product. >> >> With enough resource, maybe we could aim for Apache wave to take both >> directions - expand the ecosystem now and work on long-term incompatible >> changes, but given the lack of an existing install base this might not >>be >> an ideal choice. >> >> Until recently, I assumed we were just heading for #2, but there's >>clearly >> some desire for #1, and some known weaknesses in Wave's current >>approach. >> >> Certainly OT state-of-the-art has moved on significantly since the wave >> implementation, but should wave be on the bleeding edge of OT? Or are >>our >> developers and community more focused on a slick (and feature rich) >> implementation of the core technology google demo'd a few years back? >> >> I've got lots of questions and very few answers, but hopefully we're >> getting more clarity on what we want/expect from this community. >> >> Dave >> >> >> On 11/06/13 19:41, Michael MacFadden wrote: >> >>> In a sense yes. In a P2P model there is no single canonical wave. All >>> the federated servers would have a copy of the wave. Any server that >>> drops out simply drops out. The isolated server could still server up >>>the >>> wave to its clients if it were still connected. Then when it comes >>>back, >>> it would rejoin the other federating servers. >>> >>> There are some intricacies here, but that is the main idea. >>> >>> ~M >>> >>> On 6/11/13 7:37 PM, "Dave" <w...@glark.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>> On 11/06/13 18:48, Michael MacFadden wrote: >>>> >>>>> I have drafted up some ideas on a hybrid system. >>>>> Actually I have seen two approaches. One uses a natively P2P >>>>>protocol, >>>>> which then elects super nodes to act as "servers" in highly connected >>>>> clusters. >>>>> >>>> Interesting - so this effectively would allow re-hosting of a wave if >>>> the original host goes off line? >>>> >>>> The underlying OT supports P2P style merging, and there are the >>>> efficiency advantages of having OneTrueHost for a given wave, but if >>>> that host goes offline the wave can be re-hosted elsewhere. >>>> >>>> Dave >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > >-- >Saludos, > Bruno González > >_______________________________________________ >Jabber: stenyak AT gmail.com >http://www.stenyak.com
