Re: I can haz cloud idea

[Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com>]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 08:06:13 -0500 Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> wrote: 

TZ> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 02:12:29 +0100 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> wrote: 
LMI> Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:
LI> It'll be like using the IMAP synchronisation methodology, only for all
LI> backends and stuff.
>>> 
>>> OK.  But that's nearly impossible to share with other MUAs, unlike my
>>> LeSync proposal, and I hope you don't use deltas as I said above.

LMI> I don't think sharing this data with other MUAs should be a primary
LMI> design goal here...

LMI> The use case here (which I think is the typical use case, these days) is
LMI> "I read email all the time, and then I read a couple of groups from
LMI> eternal-news, and 74 groups from news.gmane.org, and I want those extra
LMI> groups to sync just like my mail".  Like magic, without having to know
LMI> or set up anything else.

TZ> OK, you're solving a different problem.  Mine is "I want to read and
TZ> sync NNTP groups from various MUAs."

TZ> I'll keep maintaining gnus-sync.el separately from you, so I can keep it
TZ> open to other MUAs.

Due to external commitments I'm not working on this for a while, but
wanted to write a followup so people can comment.  I think general
"cloudiness" is a good thing nowadays, but sacrificing Lisp's power to
be compatible with less powerful MUAs is not.  So a Lispy cloudiness is
a better goal, perhaps implemented with an IMAP backend.  All of the
Emacs ecosystem could benefit from such functionality: BBDB, general
data storage, auth-sources, .emacs and installed ELPA packages, and so
on.  But even just for Gnus it's a good thing.

I've been using CouchDB a lot with gnus-sync.el, and think you were
right about relying on CouchDB itself.  It's a pain in the long term,
like any database.  It's not Lispy at all, either.

I'd like to work with you set up an IMAP sync backend, perhaps driven by
gnus-sync.el, and rework gnus-sync.el as needed.  The file backend
should stay if possible; the LeSync protocol should simply become a Lisp
data merge (we'll give the users the tools to upgrade).

The main reason I agree is that I think the Lisp to JSON and back
conversion is not good.  Lisp data is so much more capable than JSON,
that flattening it into JSON makes sync very complicated.  Also I think
there's no benefit to sharing that data with other MUAs, because the
standalone MUA is a dying breed.  Web-based MUAs are the norm now, and
they don't share well... unless you use IMAP, in which case Gnus works
fine already.  For NNTP marks, the need for sharing is just not there.

Ted