Remix clone Hacker News

From the description, you can reapply transactions. How the system handles it (how much of it is up to the application, how much is handled in graft) I have no idea.

▲

bastawhiz a day ago | parent [-]

What does that mean though? How can you possibly reapply a failed transaction later? The database itself can't possibly know how to reconcile that (if it did, it wouldn't have been a failure in the first place). So it has to be done by the application, and that isn't always possible. There is still always the possibility of unavoidable data loss.

"Consistency" is really easy, as it turns out, if you allow yourself to simply drop any inconvenient transactions at some arbitrary point in the future.

▲

kikimora a day ago | parent [-]

This! Solving merge conflicts in git is quite hard. Building an app such that it has a UI and use cases for merging every operation is just unrealistic. Perhaps if you limit yourself to certain domains like CRDTs or turn based games or data silos modified by only one customer it can be useful. I doubt it can work in general case.

	▲	bastawhiz a day ago \| parent [-]
		The only situation I can think of where it's always safe is if the order that you apply changes to the state never matters: - Each action increments or decrements a counter - You have a log of timestamps of actions stored as a set - etc. If you can't model your changes to the data store as an unordered set of actions and have that materialize into state, you will have data loss. Consider a scenario with three clients which each dispatch an action. If action 1 sets value X to true, action 2 sets it to true, and action 3 sets it to false, you have no way to know whether X should be true or false. Even with timestamps, unless you have a centralized writer you can't possibly know whether some/none/all of the timestamps that the clients used are accurate. Truly a hard problem!