Re: crdt.el: proposal that server enforces the mode\

[Qiantan Hong <qhong@mit.edu>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1452 bytes --]

> 
>> I’m not sure about the idea of letting the server “dictate”
>> anything.  Emotionally I don’t like it — I try to avoid power
>> hierarchy. And technically, I can synchronize Boolean variable also
>> using CRDT.
> 
> dictate
> 
> * Overview of verb dictate
> 
> The verb dictate has 3 senses (first 2 from tagged texts)
> 1. (8) order, prescribe, dictate -- (issue commands or orders for)
> 2. (1) dictate -- (say out loud for the purpose of recording; "He dictated a report to his secretary")
> 3. dictate -- (rule as a dictator)
> 
> My usage of dictate is in the sense of definition 1, not 3, so when
> you press a key in Emacs you already issue some commands, if you share
> a buffer, you dictate that it is shared, right?
> 
> crdt.el shall be collaborative, with many factors in synchronization.
> 
So in this occasion particularly, I’m asking whether should the server
decide exclusively what minor-mode to enable, or values of buffer local variables,
or any client can change it?

For Boolean variables (like on/off of minor modes), I can give write access to
every peer and synchronize it using PN counter CRDT. I can also do similar
thing to some other buffer local variables with the help of some annotations.

However, (although I don’t like it very much), I think one can argue that giving
server exclusive write permission avoid communicational conflicts or even chaos.
What do you think?

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 1858 bytes --]