3 ms·
> Even if we get the OT part right, it’d be huge effort to port this to support other semantic structures with different set of ops Its very doable, and its be
by josephg 5y ago
> Even if we get the OT part right, it’d be huge effort to port this to support other semantic structures with different set of ops
Its very doable, and its been done. Eg, in json1[1] we have support for lots of tree operations on a set of data stored as a JSON tree:
- Insert / delete in lists
- Move (reparent) any object in the tree
- Embedded edits (so if you have a custom type inside a field and define your own operations)
This is all very general purpose. You don't need to do reinvent any of this per application.
[1] https://github.com/ottypes/json1 https://github.com/ottypes/json1
- lewisjoe 5y agoAh, we meet again! Good morning Joseph:) Let me be specific. I agree trees(or json) in general can have a fixed set of general purpose ops. This particular paper though, the author claims changing the type of a record struct is itself an operation. This allows to treat it as a special kind, thereby applying it means it has to touch a whole other set of nodes. This is just one example, there could be ops like this tailored for the structure he is working with which is what got me into thinking :)