← Back to team overview

syncany-team team mailing list archive

Re: Roadmap?



Le 03/12/2013 00:34, Philipp Heckel a écrit :
> *Roadmap:*
> The roadmap Fabrice pointed out was basically what I had in mind all
> along -- except that I think the database stuff is essential for a
> cleanup-operation. When 'cleanup' is implemented, Syncany can be
> considered "feature-complete" for the first iteration. Without 'cleanup'
> and an SQL-based local database, it's not able to run very long without
> creating a memory issue (every file/chunk/multichunk in all versions is
> kept in memory!)

Indeed, but what about early releasing something for alpha testing by
volunteers? Also, the cleanup is going to be _very_ difficult to get
right because of the lack of proper locking primitive (I'll come back to
this in another email, this might be long).

> *Wiki vs. Google Drive:*
> Github has a Wiki, let's use it :-) I'll have time tomorrow (Tuesday)
> night. If you want, you can start drafting before that.

I'll leave that to you ;-)

> *Gradle:*
> 2. I still don't like that the wrapper jar is in the repo. Is this the
> only way to do it? It's like putting an exe-file in there -- some people
> might not trust what it's doing. Is it possible to download it when it's
> first run?!

Absolutely, this is touchy.

> 3. We should not base the gradle stuff on a new repo (like in
> "syncany-gradle"). Instead, once we're sure that syncany-gradle is good
> and ready, we should use the normal "syncany" repo so we keep the
> history. We should also make sure all the branches immediately follow
> this change, because otherwise this is going to be a mess.


> *Issues with 'real-time file watching'*:
> Honestly, I don't see this as a big deal anymore. I used to, because I
> wanted to perfectly follow all files and record/process these changes.
> This "RecursiveWatcher" was a nightmare back in the old Syncany. I was
> doing too much. The current implementation is much simpler: events are
> only registered and trigger a 'sync' (after a settlement of 3 seconds).
> Look at the WatchOperation for details. However, I agree that this might
> get very complex and hard to test very quickly, so I agree with taking
> it slow here.

Well, you need at least to have one thread pushing things while the
other one records new modifications. You have also to release unneeded
watch. You have to come with the very limited signaling system of Java
(compared to linux ionotify), etc. Really, this is tricky with races
everywhere. To have fun, watch your eclipse workspace before starting
eclipse and then be amazed by the number of files this bloody beast is
modifying at startup ;-) Granted most of the difficulty lies in fine
grain watching which not what you do. But if you want acceptable
performances, you must do that in the long run because if you don't,
syncany will never reach the 1 million files I'm looking for ;-)

> With regard to the unreliable/unpredictable storage: This should be
> assumed anyway -- that's why I created the "UnreliableLocalPlugin".
> There are not many tests yet, but it's really easy to simulate any
> storage failure with this plugin.

Does it simulate _eventual consistency_? Because S3 is really
unreliable: it can reorder your writes which is super annoying. As far
as I know, the only way to implemented some kind of reliable locking
above S3 is to use the simple queue system.

Best regards,


Follow ups