Lone Wolf Development Forums

Lone Wolf Development Forums (http://forums.wolflair.com/index.php)
-   Realm Works Feature Requests (http://forums.wolflair.com/forumdisplay.php?f=84)
-   -   Multiple gms for a single realm (http://forums.wolflair.com/showthread.php?t=48917)

cedwards4 April 7th, 2014 04:01 AM

Multiple gms for a single realm
 
I looked around a bit but I don't see whether this is possible as of yet. Can there be more then one gm for a realm? I am running a game campaign where we switch the gm occasionally. It would be great if more then 1 person could be authorized to be the gm on the realm so they could be entering information, preferable simultaneously.

zarlor April 7th, 2014 05:05 AM

I think once cloud sharing is available that should be very doable.

Chemlak April 7th, 2014 08:19 AM

Huge warning flag!

Well, okay, maybe not quite that bad, but this is one of those "Whoa, there, do you know what you're asking?" things.

Say you have 2 GMs, at widely separated locations, who are both entering topics, and due to a slight mix-up in their communication, they both enter the same topic, and Sync.

Which topic will exist afterwards? Do the topics merge? Does one get destroyed by the second sync? Does it throw a sync error, and ask which copy to keep? If they merge, what order should the snippets appear in? Does it keep two copies of identical snippets?

These are just a few of the multi-GM syncing questions that LWD need to nail down before multi-GM support becomes viable. The syncing logic needs to be robust, safe, and make sure that info doesn't get lost. This is a big deal.

I expect it to happen, yes, but it might be a while before multi-GM support becomes a reality.

MaxSupernova April 7th, 2014 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chemlak (Post 180032)
Huge warning flag!

Well, okay, maybe not quite that bad, but this is one of those "Whoa, there, do you know what you're asking?" things.

Say you have 2 GMs, at widely separated locations, who are both entering topics, and due to a slight mix-up in their communication, they both enter the same topic, and Sync.

Which topic will exist afterwards? Do the topics merge? Does one get destroyed by the second sync? Does it throw a sync error, and ask which copy to keep? If they merge, what order should the snippets appear in? Does it keep two copies of identical snippets?

These are just a few of the multi-GM syncing questions that LWD need to nail down before multi-GM support becomes viable. The syncing logic needs to be robust, safe, and make sure that info doesn't get lost. This is a big deal.

I expect it to happen, yes, but it might be a while before multi-GM support becomes a reality.

I think it could be greatly simplified by having a simple "check this realm out for editing" mode, where only one can be editing at a time. No edit collisions then.

It's still a significant code effort, but less so than trying to reconcile simultaneous edits.

EightBitz April 7th, 2014 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaxSupernova (Post 180034)
I think it could be greatly simplified by having a simple "check this realm out for editing" mode, where only one can be editing at a time. No edit collisions then.

It's still a significant code effort, but less so than trying to reconcile simultaneous edits.

That only works with live database connections, which this program does not do. Even when you're logged in, you're edits are done locally, then you sync before logging off. How would you check for "editing mode" then?

Or say both people are editing offline, not even logged in. An hour later, one person logs in to sync, then logs off. An hour after that, the second person logs in to sync. Depending on what editing was done, the second person could overwrite what the first person did and could have things in his local copy overwritten that might have wanted to save and didn't realize had been edited in the cloud.

So, yeah, it's not quite all that simple. It would be NICE . . . but not simple.

lifer4700 April 7th, 2014 10:10 AM

Actually, it's quite simple.

The whole idea behind "check out for edit" means that no one else would be able to make changes while the realm is checked out.

The default condition for a realm would be "checked in" and unavailable for edit.

When a GM wants to make changes, they check it out.

When the 2nd GM went to grab a copy of the Realm or make changes to their local copy, they would have to check it out, but would not be able to, since it is checked out by the first GM.

When the first GM is done making edits, they sync and check in. Then the 2nd GM would be able to check out the realm, recieving the edits made by the first GM, and then make their own changes until they did their sync and check in.

It's a simple concept, but very limiting (by design).

lifer4700 April 7th, 2014 10:13 AM

On the other hand, concurrent work in the DB by multiple users - which is what I think 8bitz is referring to - would be super-mega-awesome, but that most certainly would be complex to implement, and would require constant live connections to The Cloud.

MaxSupernova April 7th, 2014 10:26 AM

I think eightbitz is raising that if you are offline, there would be no way to check if the realm can be checked out for editing.

Which can be solved by making it impossible to check out a Realm for editing if you're offline, which causes problems of its own...

It's a huge set of design decisions.

lifer4700 April 7th, 2014 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaxSupernova (Post 180069)
... making it impossible to check out a Realm for editing if you're offline ...

That's the way it works.

Is it elegant? Nope.
Is it the best solution? Nope.

But it's effective and relatively easy to implement.

I work for a major engineering software company, and one of our largest products is a database for document and CAD data management. Our software allows you to dynamically open and make edits in a structure or document while connected live, and the software implicitly checks things out and in as you move around making changes. Ideally, that's where I'd like to see Realm Works. Multiple people could be working on the same assembly, just in different parts. No problems.

However, you can also explicitly check out (and download) a document or CAD part, or an entire assembly, taking your time and working off-line. Meanwhile, no one else can check out that data. You can connect and upload your changes occasionally if you like, all the while keeping your checkout, so people can see any progress you're making, but until you check it back in, no one else can perform a checkout.

EightBitz April 7th, 2014 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lifer4700 (Post 180074)
That's the way it works.

Is it elegant? Nope.
Is it the best solution? Nope.

But it's effective and relatively easy to implement.

I work for a major engineering software company, and one of our largest products is a database for document and CAD data management. Our software allows you to dynamically open and make edits in a structure or document while connected live, and the software implicitly checks things out and in as you move around making changes. Ideally, that's where I'd like to see Realm Works. Multiple people could be working on the same assembly, just in different parts. No problems.

However, you can also explicitly check out (and download) a document or CAD part, or an entire assembly, taking your time and working off-line. Meanwhile, no one else can check out that data. You can connect and upload your changes occasionally if you like, all the while keeping your checkout, so people can see any progress you're making, but until you check it back in, no one else can perform a checkout.

I would imagine that the cost of buying into that technology would be a bit higher than fifty bucks.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:11 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® - Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
wolflair.com copyright 1998-2016 Lone Wolf Development, Inc. View our Privacy Policy here.