> > Instead of using files to communicate changes, I'd rather use a
> > system which mediated a live conversation between two systems (an
> > updated one and a to-be-updated one). A "synchronizer" of sorts.
> 
> This is actually what it does!

	I look forward to having the time to try it out! :)

> ...Essentially what the slave map does when you synch is it calls
> using HTTP an url at the master (at sqf typically or a mirror of it)
> with it's last known transaction number as an urlencoded argument.
> 
> The server responds by fast searching backwards in its logfile
> copying the recorded transactions from the log and then gzipping
> them together and returning them... The slave map then just
> evaluates this stuff using the Compiler, exact same technique as the
> Module files use by the way.

	Hmm; well, I'll have a better opinion after I've played with it, but
that seems to brittle to me. In particular, the conversations seems too
one-sided. It seems like there should be some way for the client to say,
"Hey, some of this stuff conflicts with other things I've got, what do I
do?" and for the right negotiation to happen. I run into trouble like
this all the time with, e.g., apt-get.

	Thanks for being so enthusiastic!


-C

--
Craig Latta
improvisational musical informaticist
craig at netjam.org
www.netjam.org/resume
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]