Multiple gms for a single realm

[Viking2054]

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Galen

Sorry AEIOU, Farling has the order correct.

Seriously, this thread is "supposed" to be dedicated to how multiple DMs (GMs for you hairlings) can utilize at the same time... Time to get back on topic.

Until the full workings of the Marketplace come to light, a lot is conjecture.

However, one thought that could work (though I have not tested it) would be to "share backups"? IT would require ALOT of repetitive backing up and re-syncing, but "could" it be a work-around?

It would require abit of maneuvering...
1> both DMs have RW (obvious one there)
2> DM #1 Sync to RW Cloud
3> DM#1 Backup Realm
4> Copy realm to flash drive
5> DM#2 Restore realm from DM#1 to his copy of RW
6> DM#2 add whatever content DM#2 is managing
7> DM#2 Sync to RW Cloud
8> DM#2 Backup Realm

Rinse Repeat

Now the two versions of the Syncs on the cloud would still be separate, because they are tied to User accounts, not PC Ids, but backing up at both points would prevent some data corruption.

To my knowledge, there is nothing in the "backup file" that ties it to the user account (Rob, one of his minion would have to clarify). IF there is not, then "might be" a cumbersome workaround for a few months till the marketplace takes off....
Thoughts?

Uhm... wouldn't each realm require a GUID (Globally Unique Identifier) that is generated when you created the realm (hence requiring an internet connection in order to create a Realm). Also, my understanding is that backing up is all realms and not an individual realm. So you would be passing back and forth multiple realms and multiple GUID's. And the GUID's would be tied to a user's account, in my opinion. I think this could become real messy real quick. The cloud service might also pitch a fit seeing the same GUID's uploaded to multiple accounts.

[Parody]

The user information is stored in the local realm database, so at present restoring a backup should replace the user info. Sadly I don't have two GM accounts to test with. ::shrug::

[Dark Lord Galen]

Originally Posted by Parody

The user information is stored in the local realm database, so at present restoring a backup should replace the user info. Sadly I don't have two GM accounts to test with. ::shrug::

That was how I envisioned it, but not worth $ to test such a theory for something I would never use.

Originally Posted by Viking2054

Uhm... wouldn't each realm require a GUID (Globally Unique Identifier) that is generated when you created the realm (hence requiring an internet connection in order to create a Realm). Also, my understanding is that backing up is all realms and not an individual realm. So you would be passing back and forth multiple realms and multiple GUID's. And the GUID's would be tied to a user's account, in my opinion. I think this could become real messy real quick. The cloud service might also pitch a fit seeing the same GUID's uploaded to multiple accounts.

You are correct on getting the ALL or NONE effect.... didn't suggest this was a preferred application :O) just a bizarre hypothesis.

Originally Posted by AEIOU

Until all the data is stored in the cloud all the time, I can't think of a good way to easily implement a checkout process.

However, I can't see any reason not to allow multiple GMs per realm right now. Warn them of the consequences and then click six little buttons that say "I've read this warning" and then type the phrase: "I understand that data WILL be lost if another GM saves over material that they had not synched prior to making changes."

True, but as Chemlak suggests this changes the method the cloud server looks at the data from determining differences to resolving conflicts if we were to be working on similar parts of the same Realm, or for that matter how the links, etc would respond.

Originally Posted by AEIOU

If DLG and I teamed up, he'd be working on calendars and I'd be working on getting material ready for export. He'd save his work to the cloud first because he's smarter than me. And I'd save over his work later that evening.

I win!..errr, I mean that's OUR problem because we both worked on the data at the same time and we understood that this was a no-no. We should haveo coordinated our efforts more effectively or we should have figured out which one of us had the more important data.

Win? naaa cause I will obviously realize that you failed to let me know you're syncing my sync and would restore since I backed up my version of the fille.... hehehe

Seriously, AEOIOU is quite right, it would require lots of good communication and forethought between each of "us" for this bizarre application.
Although, in the future, this thread could be the spark to what could be a community type of "Realm" that a new user could start from. hummmmmm But would require the cross communication and idea development being kicked about here to all use "One Realm" ....
If we build it they will come.....
One realm to RULE THEM ALL.... Mawwaahahahahhh

Originally Posted by Vargr

However, ALL the data in the cloud is worrisome - at least to me.

The reason? My understanding of the consequence is, that you will then have to be 'always online' when using RW.

It often happens that I am places where I have no or poor internet connection but loads of time to work on my projects.

As others already voiced, you don't have to be on line to utilize, just to sync new data added with the old stored (If you choose to even do that). I agree with your concern, as I often work out of country in places that have sporadic internet service (let alone hot water), but again the lack of WIFI wont keep you from working on your realms, just keeps you from creating new ones and sync.

Originally Posted by Chemlak

We are getting into the bizarre peculiarities of sync logic, here, which in general I think we need to leave to LWD (tell them what we want, let them sweat the how).

Right now (if I'm understanding RW right) the sync logic is looking at differences, and offering the user which realm to keep. Shared GMing will need to do something similar, but be looking for conflicts rather than differences, auto sync non-conflicting data, and ask the user to resolve the conflicts (or have a GMing hierarchy in place so that GM 1's data overwrites GM 2's data in all cases).

Waaaaaaaaaay more complex.

@Chemlak
You are quite right, not suggesting that this should be done, just that it might maybe could be done. there is ALOT of risk for the impatient wanting "quick fixes" ...

@ All, this of course, is a hypothetical solution without merit or testing. As others have mentioned (different thread I think) the more likely solution would be the ability to "share" a realm via an approval system, similar to a mass used *.doc file or DBS, With the "owner" approving and reconciling conflicts before syncing.... this of course is more programming (A lot) to appease what is probably a very small market of users.

[pyremius]

Since everything is Snippet-based, one hack for conflict resolution would be to merge the Topics, with every unique Snippet being kept in the consolidated Topic. Some sort of highlighting would be helpful, identifying Snippets that were unique to each copy.

That would leave the work on us to figure out which Snippets are variants of another (and thus need to be reconciled), and which were new and can be left as-is.

[Dark Lord Galen]

Originally Posted by pyremius

Since everything is Snippet-based, one hack for conflict resolution would be to merge the Topics, with every unique Snippet being kept in the consolidated Topic. Some sort of highlighting would be helpful, identifying Snippets that were unique to each copy.

That would leave the work on us to figure out which Snippets are variants of another (and thus need to be reconciled), and which were new and can be left as-is.

Good point, can also see this applied from a DM to player back to DM route as well... Currently the Player edition is incapable of passing information back to the DM via the realm. Utilizing an approach as you suggest, the player could "add" something to the version he/she has access to, sync and the "owner" DM could review, approve modify or reject.

This could lead to a lot of "fun player assumptions" that the DM could approve into the realm and then flag as "Untrue" ie like rumors leaving the player to determine the truths from the fictions... Seems this was kicked around in another thread but not the mechanics of how...

[Vargr]

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Galen

As others already voiced, you don't have to be on line to utilize, just to sync new data added with the old stored (If you choose to even do that). I agree with your concern, as I often work out of country in places that have sporadic internet service (let alone hot water), but again the lack of WIFI wont keep you from working on your realms, just keeps you from creating new ones and sync.

I am well aware that presently RW works well without internet connectivity, as long as you have at least one realm to work in.

It was the wording "everything in the cloud in the future" or something like that which worried me.

[weogarth]

I suspect that Rob and team would find something more elegant on multi-GM conflicts. I see something like present them in a dialog similar to the linking dialogs we get now. It'd show us the topic, the conflict in the topic including who made which entry and offer someone the ability to pick one, the other or perhaps even combine the two for resolution later.

[pyremius]

That would be the end-state. I think everything in my idea is a necessary intermediate step, except for the final "merge all into topic" - which they would want to keep anyhow, for those instances where you want to focus on something else (flash of inspiration, game-prep deadline, let the other person clean up their own mess, etc.).

For delayed cleanup there should also be an automatically selected Utility: Conflict tag to allow easy filtering so you know where to come back later.

[Viking2054]

Wouldn't the "Feedback Notes" idea I proposed several months ago be a better way, at least initially to handle multiple contributors? Provided it isn't too hard or time consuming for LWD to implement that is.

Here is the link to the other thread if your interested. http://forums.wolflair.com/showthread.php?t=50414

[Dark Lord Galen]

Ah quite right Viking... I remember your thread on that... and can see an applied use here...