How does one handle an upgrade to mutators? If a client is running old code then the operation will differ to the server. Obvious answer would be to version them independently: `increment_v1`, `increment_v2`, but wondering if there is a better answer?
At the moment there is no better answer than do not remove your old mutators until you know there are no more clients out there that might have pending changes.
Right now that window is pretty small because we haven't turned on persistence yet.
Has anyone built a mobile app on top of SQLite that can work offline, but then sync to a server when it gets connectivity? It feels like this could be built with a similar approach to this distributed SQLite, you'd "just" need more robust conflict handling.
Great that you brought it up. I will fill in the perspective of what I am doing for solving this in Marmot (https://github.com/maxpert/marmot). Today Marmot already records changes via installing triggers to record changes of a table, hence all the offline changes (while Marmot is not running) are never lost. Today when Marmot comes up after a long off-time (depending upon max_log_size configuration), it realizes that and tries to catch up changes via restoring a snapshot and then applying rest of logs from NATS (JetStream) change logs. I am working on change that will be publishing those change logs to NATS before it restores snapshots, and once it reapplies those changes after restoring snapshot everyone will have your changes + your DB will be up to date. Now in this case one of the things that bothers people is the fact that if two nodes coming up with conflicting rows the last writer wins.
For that I am also exploring on SQLite-Y-CRDT (https://github.com/maxpert/sqlite-y-crdt) which can help me treat each row as document, and then try to merge them. I personally think CRDT gets harder to reason sometimes, and might not be explainable to an entry level developers. Usually when something is hard to reason and explain, I prefer sticking to simplicity. People IMO will be much more comfortable knowing they can't use auto incrementing IDs for particular tables (because two independent nodes can increment counter to same values) vs here is a magical way to merge that will mess up your data.
Not 100% sure if it uses SQLite, but there's an app called "Flaming Durtles" on Android. It's a frontend for WaniKani (Japanese learning app). The app downloads all the lessons from WK's servers, and you can do them even when offline. When you go online, it uploads them to the backend and syncs everything else. In my experience, it works flawlessly.
It's actually a 3rd party app, WK provides an API so that people can make apps that interface with the system.
Not sure how it's implemented but seems like a pretty common pattern on Android. For instance, Gmail and Mint apps both allow offline changes that get synced. Not sure if they use SQLite but afaik that's sort of the defacto standard for Android app storage.
we have done it a few times. It is a lot more work and a lot of edge cases come up, especially if the same data can be written by multiple people. But if data or use case is such that only one person can write to same data and you limit only one logged in client at a time, it's much easier to do.
This also addresses an issue when you transition from black to transparent to emulate a shadow, and end up with a "cliff" where the gradient abruptly changes. You can see this in the tool when you transition from black to white with LRGB. Any of the other color spaces avoid it. Very cool!
Although it technically has cross platform GUI, Flutter has actually reimplemented all the native OS widgets. As soon as the OS changes some look and feel your app will look out of date.
Yes it will look out of date. But whats important? A functioning app or good looking one? We all know that websites written for ie6 are out there today making millions in revenue. It always comes down to the functionality not the looks
You can be as tolerant as you want, that's not how things go for iOS apps. It's certainly not how things go on macOS except when there are no available alternatives.
Windows, Android, and the web, constantly changing so that there's never really been any sense of stability, blind a lot of developers to the fact that good design is both functionality AND looks.
When people complain about designs of controls being out of date, they don't only refer to looks. They refer to how they feel, behave — or more succinctly, don't correspond to the expectations set up by the rest of the system.
To reduce the debate down to looks vs. functionality is reducing things down to the wrong level, missing the forest for the trees, and ignoring the user — a person who often isn't able to express what they need but knows what they want, not often realising that they're the same thing.
We currently use wasm on the Adobe XD team for rendering shared prototypes in the browser. It allows us to share C++ rendering code across desktop and web and has been a massive success for us.
The browser support is good enough for our customer base, as it works across all operating systems and mobile devices, and we can fall back for asm.js for IE11.
That graph shows it was almost as popular in 2004 as it is today, so obviously that term isn't just referring to the editor. (since it wasn't released until 2015)
