- From: Nikunj Mehta <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 08:10:56 -0700
- To: "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
- CC: public-webapps@w3.org, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Please bear with me as I gain my footing with the w3 communication style. This message is now in plain text. [2] should be corrected as http://oracle.com/technology/tech/feeds/ Below is a comparison of BITSY/AtomDB on the one hand and Gears and FeedSync on the other: *Why would I use BITSY over FeedSync?* FeedSync is a protocol developed by Microsoft to perform synchronization of data on XML feed formats such as RSS or Atom. FeedSync is suited to scenarios where there is no single “master” copy. Atompub and BITSY are designed for HTTP-based client-server systems where the server owns the master copy. FeedSync has additional restrictions on the Atom feeds and can only work with feeds specially prepared for synchronization with FeedSync. BITSY can work using plain old Atom feeds with no extensions. Furthermore, FeedSync places additional burden on feed sources to keep additional FeedSync metadata, while BITSY does not place any obligations on the server. FeedSync has not been contributed to any standards body whereas Atompub is already standardized and BITSY is being offered for public standardization. *How is AtomDB different from Gears?* Gears (from Google) is an open source project to provide a web based application environment that will run inside of any browser and to extend the capabilities of existing browsers without becoming dependent on the browser vendor. Gears provides a SQL data store and a local HTTP server, however Gears does not provide a synchronization mechanism forcing applications to come up with their own. Moreover, applications are also required to use a SQL-based programming model to take advantage of the local storage capabilities requiring the application to be rewritten to acquire off line capabilities. By leveraging Atom feeds, AtomDB does not require every application to develop a new synchronization protocol nor does it impose a new programming technique for taking advantage of the local storage capabilities. Gears engenders an offline application mindset where applications are designed primarily for off-line use with synchronization sprinkled in between. In environments where Gears is not present, a separate kind of application is offered to the user since local storage is not available. AtomDB fosters thinking about applications seamlessly transitioning between online and offline situations. The same application code that works off-line works online as well (modulo server replication logic running on the client when the server is missing). Some online functions may not be available when a server cannot be reached, but this is no different from Gears. Hope that helps. Nikunj http://o-micron.blogspot.com On Oct 16, 2008, at 12:19 AM, Michael(tm) Smith wrote: > Nikunj Mehta <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>, 2008-10-14 21:00 -0700: > >> [...] More documents explaining the motivation for this approach as >> well as comparisons with other techniques such as Gears and FeedSync are >> also available [2] >> >> [1] http://oracle.com/technology/tech/feeds/spec/bitsy.xhtml >> [2] http://oracle.com/technology/tech/feeds > > I couldn't find anything at [2] that actually does compare BITSY > to Gears, etc. Perhaps you could post a summary directly to > public-webapps@w3.org? > > --Mike > > -- > Michael(tm) Smith > http://people.w3.org/mike/
Received on Friday, 17 October 2008 15:12:14 UTC