On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 03:07:46PM -0800, Assaf Arkin wrote: > A lot of the comments made with regards to the HTTP GET/PUT approach so far > seem to mirror these algorithms, That's no coincidence! 8-) > though for the most part I would say that > the discussion has ignored some of the safety mechanism that is required for > reliability, such as round identifiers and failure detection. That's true, we have ignored those in the discussion. But consider; http://www.w3.org/1999/04/Editing/ which is a solution to the "lost update" problem, i.e. where subsequent rounds modify the actions of prior rounds. Etags aren't round identifiers, but are state identifiers which can be used similarly. > Just pointing out that this discussion could be elevated if we could look at > what was already researched/done rather than trying to re-invent the wheel. Excellent idea! I think I'm doing just that, only not talking about it at that detailed a level. > Personally, I have actually implemented this stuff and I think it's superior > to traditional coordination protocols in its ability to address failure. What do you mean by "traditional coordination protocols"? Most of the coordination protocols I know about are quite aware of these issues. > There's a whole class of use cases where you would want to use these > algorithms, and definitely a good learning opportunity for the WS community. Agreed! MB -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysisReceived on Thursday, 9 January 2003 22:46:54 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:13 GMT