Re:CAP: Don't settle for eventual consistency
by ProblemFactory on Wednesday June 28, 2017 @04:20PM
(#14657936)
I think the argument is that people expect mobile and client-side web apps to continue working offline, and eventually sync and merge changes across clients. So you need a good solution for resolving inconsistent updates made by two offline clients. The same solution could be used for resolving inconsistent updates made on two database servers.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:CAP: Don't settle for eventual consistency
by naasking on Wednesday June 28, 2017 @07:38PM
(#14659555)
> So you need a good solution for resolving inconsistent updates made by two offline clients. The same solution could be used for resolving inconsistent updates made on two database servers.
Exactly what I was trying to get at, thanks. The line between client state, server state and db state is a thin illusion. As REST makes explicit, every client operates on a representation of some server resources, which means CAP can come into play in even the most trivial online apps.
Re:CAP: Don't settle for eventual consistency
by marknadal on Wednesday June 28, 2017 @04:35PM
(#14658110)
This is so beautifully said, I wish I could have been that concise. Thank you for this comment, very well worded. That is exactly what I'm trying to do with my own system, for anybody curious: https://github.com/amark/gun (MIT / ZLIB / Apache 2 licensed).