On 07/16/2012 04:49 PM, Adam Wight wrote:
Cool! That's a nice solution because it's
transparent to the end-user's
system. However, if we use the current schema as you're describing, we
would have to reconcile rev_id conflicts during the merge. This seems
like a nasty problem if the merge is asynchronous, for example a batched
changeset sent in email.
And that would be the core problem of asynchronous optimistic
replication ;) Simple last-write-wins or union (for shopping carts..)
strategies are still manageable, but merging textual changes is harder.
Manual intervention will often be needed.
The editor rather than some unsuspecting reader should be best equipped
to resolve these conflicts, so some degree of synchrony in the 'push'
stage might make sense to provide an opportunity for editor-guided merging.
Gabriel