5 ms·
In a way, the one-time migration might be harder than near-realtime bidirectional synchronization. That way, you could move portions of users to the new system
by MartinCron 16y ago
In a way, the one-time migration might be harder than near-realtime bidirectional synchronization. That way, you could move portions of users to the new system and back as needed. A sudden leap from one backend to another is like jumping over the grand canyon on a motorcycle. Personally, I would rather build a bridge.
- pilif 16y agoFor the concurrent configuration to work consistently, digg would probably have to port v3 to the new backend. Now in the current case, the most issues apparently come from the non-working backend as opposed to the changed featureset. So while they could have run the two versions in parallel, they would not have gained anything. Likely, this was their rationale behind not doing so in the first place.
- MartinCron 16y agoNo, for the current configuration to work, you would have to create a way to move data in both directions from the "old" backend to the "new" backend. Ideally, you would slice up the beast so you didn't have to do this with everything all at once. It's not a system that would be ideal for something transactional like a bank, but it may have been possible for an organization like Digg.