Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hplabs!hplabsz!mayer From: mayer@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM (Niels Mayer) Newsgroups: comp.groupware Subject: Why is a replicated DB a lose?? (was Re: Lotus Notes Info. Wanted) Message-ID: <4995@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM> Date: 20 Mar 90 22:34:46 GMT References: <16190001@hpycla.HP.COM> <90073.070606RFM@psuvm.psu.edu> <90077.123450RFM@psuvm.psu.edu> Reply-To: mayer@hplabs.hp.com (Niels Mayer) Organization: Hewlett-Packard Labs, Software Technology Lab, Palo Alto, CA. Lines: 28 Summary: Expires: Sender: Followup-To: (Hi Alan!) I'm not at all familiar with the DB architecture of Lotus Notes... however, a comment you made in your (very helpful) description of that system begs for elabration: In article wex@sitting.pws.bull.com (Buckaroo Banzai) writes: > - Notes uses a custom, highly-optimized, fully-replicated database to store >documents. Documents are seen through hierarchical views. Views are >predefined for each DB, though users can define "custom views." {this is >their biggest luze, imho. A replicated DB is a disaster waiting to happen. Why is a replicated DB a "luze" for such groupware applications? How would *you* build a DB to share such information? Would your dream system do queries on a remote databases, and have that information come back in "realtime"?? What object granularity would you be able to support? What about situations where notes sites are not connected by fast networks?? Isn't USENET news a slimy form of replicated DB? It seems to work ok... though it doesn't really offer very much functionality. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Niels Mayer -- hplabs!mayer -- mayer@hplabs.hp.com Human-Computer Interaction Department Hewlett-Packard Laboratories Palo Alto, CA. *