3 ms·

Why do there have to be two copies of the file? Could there not be only one copy of the file, with two "begin pointers" that are dated? When a user decides th

by drone 14y ago

Why do there have to be two copies of the file? Could there not be only one copy of the file, with two "begin pointers" that are dated? When a user decides that they no longer need an older version, the older section can be purged. Obviously, this could result in quite large files, and we start wanting to do smarter edits to the contents, but I'm not sure having two distinct copies of the data serve the average user any better than one with two internal copies of the data? Obviously, there are technical challenges, but let's just assume for a minute that years of database and similar use case-driven development have solved many of the basic issues already.

jpxxx 14y ago
Two copies solves more problems than it wastes space. What you're describing is concurrent access to a shared resource, which means we now need to start having the following discussions: - Who's accessing? - Where's the thing they're accessing? - When are they starting? - When are they done? - What happens if they stop talking without saying goodbye? - What happens if changes from User A happen before User B gets a full copy of the starting work object? - What happens if User B deletes everything? Should she be able to? - How do we manage identity? - What happens if the work object is asked to save but is in an incomplete or non-logical state? - What happens if the work object is damaged? (Now multiply the word 'user' by multiple axes: actual humans, programs, network services, filesystem services) This is an awful, awful, awful lot of work designed to save the space used by a duplicate 300KB .PPTX file. And frankly, I've only ever seen SubEthaEdit get it right. Also: the user will never, ever, ever, ever decide to review or delete an old file. That's shit-work, and we are mortal. A majority of customers aren't even aware that there can be multiple versions of the same work or that the work they're doing can be expressed discretely - they're just doing stuff, and cannot be expected to think about about stuff--. So in short, let's waste some space and save some hassle. That's what flash chips are for.

by drone 14y ago

jpxxx 14y ago

Two copies solves more problems than it wastes space. What you're describing is concurrent access to a shared resource, which means we now need to start having the following discussions: - Who's accessing? - Where's the thing they're accessing? - When are they starting? - When are they done? - What happens if they stop talking without saying goodbye? - What happens if changes from User A happen before User B gets a full copy of the starting work object? - What happens if User B deletes everything? Should she be able to? - How do we manage identity? - What happens if the work object is asked to save but is in an incomplete or non-logical state? - What happens if the work object is damaged? (Now multiply the word 'user' by multiple axes: actual humans, programs, network services, filesystem services) This is an awful, awful, awful lot of work designed to save the space used by a duplicate 300KB .PPTX file. And frankly, I've only ever seen SubEthaEdit get it right. Also: the user will never, ever, ever, ever decide to review or delete an old file. That's shit-work, and we are mortal. A majority of customers aren't even aware that there can be multiple versions of the same work or that the work they're doing can be expressed discretely - they're just doing stuff, and cannot be expected to think about about stuff--. So in short, let's waste some space and save some hassle. That's what flash chips are for.