On Apr 13, 2007, at 2:59 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> On 4/13/07, Marcel Reutegger <marcel.reutegger@gmx.net> wrote:
>> hmm, I see. there seems to be a fundamental mismatch between the  
>> spi and the ngp
>> design. The spi clearly decouples the transient changes from the  
>> server whereas
>> the ngp rather integrates them more tightly into the core.
>
> Agreed. I think the mismatch is an example of the more general
> tradeoffs between remote and local access. For a remote client it
> definitely makes sense to keep the transient space local as long as
> possible, but for a local client this is not a strict requirement,
> just one design option among others.

It sounds to me more like the transient space needs its own backing
store mechanism.  It doesn't make sense for unsaved changes to
be sent across the SPI, for the same reason it doesn't make sense
to send workspace edits to the subversion repo before an explicit
commit.  Ideally, we should be able to support offline editing of
the workspace for any nodes that are already copied to the client,
without having to worry about the memory size.  Usually that means
keeping only a window of memory active and persisting changes outside
that window to the local disk.

....Roy