Re: Concurrency in an RDB

Marshall wrote:
> >
> > > > Real time, interactive editing of replicated data is very well suited
> > > > to OT.
> >
> > > This is nothing but more description; you have already supplied
> > > plenty of that. My interest is in an example.
> > The shared jigsaw, text and white board components were real
> > examples that I gave.
>
> No they weren't. They were handwavy descriptions of something
> one could build that you claim used some of the techniques
> you're proposing. *I* haven't seen anything yet except vague
> descriptions.

David wrote, "I have built a working system and the results are very impressive. In
our office we've collaborated on a large virtual world of components including text documents, jigsaws, white boards etc. "

Something one *could* build. Is English your second language?

> You do know this *is* a theory group, right? Do you actually
> have any theory? Any papers? Any math? Computational
> models? Equations? Examples, even?
>

> Okay, I think you're in the wrong newsgroup. This is a database
> theory newsgroup. Those with an application framework du jour
> are directed to comp.object. OT is OT here.

It seems to me that you have led David away from discussing database theory. OT may be OT here, but you're the one that wanted to talk about it. Perhaps you're in the wrong news group? In order to answer Davids original question, we need to know what assumptions are being made, and hence, we do need to know the implications of the OT approach.

A discussion of OT in comp.object would not talk about deadlock, transactions, and all the other database theory related topics raised in this thread. It's these issues that David seems interested in, not a discussion about OT. Received on Thu Dec 21 2006 - 00:13:26 CET