Re: Concurrency in an RDB

Sampo Syreeni wrote:
> On 2006-12-15, David wrote:
>
> > For example, an insertion into a text document can only have the
> > insertion position adjusted by OT. The insertion itself is not
> > disabled under inclusion transform.
>
> Really? Then I must be reading the dOPT paper wrong. It was my
> impression that if two sites simultaneously try to insert the same
> character into the same position, they are arbitrated and the loser is
> annulled. Of course that's just one example of how you can arrange an OT
> protocol, so not all such protocols necessarily need to annul anything,
> but that's still the only solution I've seen fleshed out.

Note that dOPT is flawed. In fact virtually all published papers on OT are flawed, or inefficient or both.

> > For example, it is useful to allow branching and merging of source
> > code by developers working on the same software project, but not with
> > aeroplane seat reservations.
>
> This is rather a heavy restriction, if OT really has it.

It's not such a heavy restriction because most data in the world can be decoupled from "device". Examples are CAD drawings, rich text editing, an RDB for your music collection, or a company's employee DB.

Do you understand what I mean when I distinguish between data and device? Is there a better way of saying it?

Cheers,
David Received on Mon Dec 18 2006 - 03:33:56 CET