Yep, you are correct. The points on "undo" came about when (Linus?)
was talking about an "instantaneous" world. For the "instantaneous"
to exist "undo" or rollbacks but exist.
The "authentication" model you suggest also works, if you are willing
to agree that the first packet to hit the brain works - an assumption
I can more than live with.
If I am in a scene all by myself then why would the world not act
"instantaneous"? But as soon as a second person walks into the scene
the consistancy model could switch to the "authentication".
I *think* that under your proposal this is possible is it not? Isn't
this the same as saying "the brain is on my machine" vs "the brain is
not on my machine"? Would a check like that allow us to move between
consistancy levels?
> In my model, Fred would have to send a pick-up message to the wallets brain,
> before he can actually get it, and so would Barney.
>
> Basically, in this case, the person with the least lag to the host running
> the brain for the wallet would win. But it would never be inconsistent.
Or if Fred was alone why bother going to the Brain?
> I think you are solving a non-problem. The picking-up itself must be
> authenticated by a single control-point, IMHO.
I guess I want to get as close to an "instantaneous" world as we can.
I don't want to have to go over the network to another host if I don't
have to. Rollback keeps the world flowing smoothly - but only until
a rollback has to occur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neophytos Iacovou Distributed Computing Services
University of Minnesota 100 Union St. SE
email: [email protected] Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA