Remix clone Hacker News

For me personally I have 4 of those as visited, pouchdb, automerge, loro and sqlsync of course. I was trying to fit such a tool into existing architectures that I deal with at work but nothing really makes sense.

My guess is those solutions are in totally wrong abstraction layer, creators think that would be best thing since sliced bread - but in reality having rest API and some persistence on client is like 99% good enough. With service workers in browser and mobile apps no problem of just having data stores.

Sending out specific partial updates, just reloading full state from the server is just easy to explain to the users and easy to implement. Last write wins with some auditing log is also good for something like 99.9% of applications and is super easy to explain to people - what's not easy to explain and not easy to implement is merging conflicts on database data. It is not easy to make audit logs server side so they are not tampered with if you just sync full database instead of doing REST requests.

This approach with "sync databases" feels for me exactly like someone proposing use of LateX because it is great to people who need to write 10 page essays.

▲

whizzter 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

It's about the multiplayer application case, think Google Write/Sheets/etc. Applications with data that can change by multiple users and you can both see it live and the application (that keeps state in memory/localdb) is also resilient to disconnects.

The reason people descend into this madness is because visible replication code is tricky and the general feeling is that it'll infect parts that shouldn't be infected (or at least not without a general framework).

So at a somewhat trivial level you have:

A: A bare log replication system (where the application needs awareness for most object types multiplying object complexity).

B: A object replication system where the framework handles all object types coherently and the application "only" needs to be aware of how to fetch objects, think a KV store that stores fairly basic objects with some addressing support.

C: Since recent crowd "wisdom" dictates that most KV stores will likely re-implement SQL functionality badly, people go straight to doing the SQL case (maybe they've had a curiosity about SQL databases already that they're scratching)

I've recently built A (basic replication and LWW) and building the application I'm definitively feeling an itch to just start over or adjust to support B (a simple replicated KV store) to separate the concerns more, I can see how I would also feel the SQL itch of C (but having done SQL like systems before it's not as bad for me).

For this first application A will suffice (since the offline needs are relatively trivial) but having a more complicated application in mind I'm strongly considering B for that project (along with designs or third party libs to make it happen).

I think a big gap in the space is that most seem focused on "documents" (esp the CRDT based tools), ie a document being the atomic piece that is synchronized but imo it leaves a big gap in that now all regular application management tools like SQL query tools are useless since essentially you only have a bunch of "blobs" or worse. If you want the regular enterprise SQL backend these tools don't seem to have a focus on synchronizing to those regular backend storage systems.

▲

bbrks a day ago | parent | next [-]

This gap is filled by the likes of Couchbase where a single org controls the majority of the stack (spoiler/disclaimer alert: I've been working on Couchbase's Sync for 8 years)

You get local the document-level atomicity for sync. Multi-document transaction support on server side, KV access, SQL inside JSON docs or even across multiple documents, Full Text Search, and fine-grained/RBAC for document-level synchronization - but the cost is as much lock-in as it is financial. You can't mix and match storage, query or sync without pretty big tradeoffs.

▲

ozim a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I don’t see it you missed the context or I miss something.

Multiplayer documents are real time synchronized and since they are documents that’s totally not use case for DB synchronization.

All the tools are for offline to online data synchronization. Different use case than document.

	▲	whizzter 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Not really, the fundamental problem shared for all the tools mentioned by GP is the same of concurrent edits. We as an industry typically ignore it in regular CRUD settings due to low conflicting operation frequency, but it gets problematic in offline and multiplayer settings since those cause it to become more common/visible. As for documents vs DB, technically you can often compose documents into a number of tables. And having it decomposed into a regular DB simplifies a lot of visibility tasks since you don't need to built an extra layer to manage that and/or you might want to implement partial permissions into something that feels "document like" but really pertains to a larger system.

▲

drewcoo a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> I wonder why there are so many, just people reinventing stuff that no one really needs? Or were you being rhetorical?

What do people really need? Who defines and polices that?

> just reloading full state from the server is just easy to explain to the users and easy to implement

Is the green light on? If not, press the "power" button. Never underestimate the difficulty of explaining the simple to the uninterested.

The audience in this case is geeks like us, so it's probably ok to have wonky process until someone forks the project and fixes those problems.

▲

codeulike a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"nearly every problem these days is a synchronisation problem"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43434239

▲

isaachinman a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Wrote a very-related blog post here:

https://marcoapp.io/blog/offline-first-landscape

	▲	vladstudio 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		thanks for the link! just in time for me.