incubator-wave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Yuri Z <vega...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: A Very Wavey Plan (P2P!)
Date Wed, 19 Jun 2013 18:32:49 GMT
Sounds fantastic, especially when it comes from you Joseph.
Just a side note regarding SVN-Git issue - it is possible to combine both
by using git-svn - it works fine for me.


On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Joseph Gentle <josephg@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've given half a dozen talks about ShareJS over the last 3 years, and
> almost every time I give a talk, someone asks me whether you can use
> ShareJS in a peer-to-peer way instead of just through a single server.
>
> "You say it works like subversion. Can it work like Git?"
> "Can you have a document shared between multiple servers?"
>
> Sigh no. ShareJS & Wave's algorithms were invented in 1995. Back then,
> it was news when someone put up a new website.
>
> "What about Wave Federation?" Appropriately, it works like IRC, but
> using XML. Its complicated, its vulnerable to netsplits and its buggy.
> I guess its like IRC except it doesn't actually work.
>
> So lets fix that! Lets modernize wave and make it federate properly.
> On the way we have a great opportunity to make it simpler and cleaner.
>
>
> To start, I want to build a generic P2P OT container. This is a simple
> wrapper that contains a set of OT documents and defines a network
> protocol for keeping them in sync. The container needs to be able to
> talk to another instance of itself running somewhere else and
> syncronize documents between the two instances.
>
> Thats all I want this container to do - it should be as lightweight as
> possible, so we can port it to lots of different languages and
> environments. I want that code running in websites, in giant server
> farms, in vim, and everywhere in between. It won't have any database
> code, network code, users or a user interface (though it'll need APIs
> to support all of that stuff). At its core it just does OT + protocol
> work to syncronize documents.
>
> What are the documents? Well, like ShareJS, I'd like to support
> multiple different kinds of data. We'll need to be able to support
> wave's conversation model, but I'd also like to support arbitrary
> JSON. Doing OT over arbitrary JSON structures would allow other
> applications to be built on top of wave, using wave as a data platform
> ("Glorious messaging bus in the sky"). It'd also be super useful for
> gadgets and user data.
>
> There's three models I can imagine for what wavelets could look like:
>
> Option 1: All documents in the container have a unique name and a
> type. This is how ShareJS works. We could have a JSON type and a
> wavelet type. This is simple, but not particularly extensible (it
> makes it hard to embed JSON inside a conversation, and vice versa).
>
> Option 2: At the root of every document is a JSON object. Leaves in
> the JSON structure can be subdocuments, which could be rich text for
> blips, or any other type we think of down the road.
>
> Option 3: We make another layer, which can contain a set of documents.
> So, a wavelet could contain a JSON document describing the
> conversation structure, some rich text documents for blips and another
> JSON document containing gadget data or something. Access control
> rules are at the container level. This is (sort of) how wavelets work
> today.
>
> The OT itself I imagine building along the lines of Torben Weis's P2P
> OT theory that he made in Lightwave:
> https://code.google.com/p/lightwave/ . Briefly, every operation gets a
> hash (like git). We add tombstones to wave's OT type and remove
> invertability, so the transform function supports TP2. We also add a
> prune function (inverse transform) which allows the history list to be
> reordered (so you don't have to transform out on every site). The hard
> part is figuring out which operations to sync, and which operations
> need to be reordered. I'd like to go over the details with Michael
> MacFadden and anyone else who's interested - there may well be a
> better system that we should use instead. If there is, I'd like to
> know about it now.
>
>
> Once thats built, we can start integrating it into WIAB. The simplest
> way to do the client-server protocol and federation will be to simply
> reuse the container's protocol (obviously wrapped for access control).
> We could also strip it down for pure client-server interaction if we
> want, to make it less chatty. (If we decide thats worthwhile.)
>
> I'm also thinking about full end-to-end encryption. Especially in the
> wake of the PRISM stuff, I'd quite like to make something secure.
> Snowden: "Encryption works. Properly implemented strong crypto systems
> are one of the few things that you can rely on. Unfortunately,
> endpoint security is so terrifically weak that NSA can frequently find
> ways around it." --
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-nsa-files-whistleblower
> .
>
>
> All of this should happen in the experiments branch (with a mirror on
> github).
>
> The design decisions that we make here will be really hard to change
> later, so I'd like to get this right. I'd like as much feedback as
> possible. But please restrain yourself from complaining that its too
> much work. You're not the boss of me :D
>
> Also, I expect the core OT piece to be no longer than a few thousand
> lines. We can definitely pull that off - its just figuring out what
> those lines are thats the tricky part.
>
> Cheers
> Joseph
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message