Plan for a "Generic Record Sync"

Nicholas Alexander nalexander at
Tue Jan 29 23:18:27 UTC 2019


This is great!  I'm really pleased to see you (and really, the larger a-s
team!) thinking about extensible Sync 1.5.  Sync 1.6, if you will :)

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 2:29 PM Thom Chiovoloni <tchiovoloni at>

> I've been kicking around ideas for this for a while, and finally wrote
> them down. Essentially, it's a plan for us to get some of the benefits of
> Mentat without all of the troubles required to implement Mentat. In
> particular, it gets us ease of implementing new data types, some degree of
> schema evolution, and inter-record references (with some limitations).
> My big fear would be that without something like this, teams will turn to
> off the shelf sync solutions that don't offer the same crypto/privacy/etc
> protection that they would with Sync (E.g. things like firebase, etc).
> It also has a more limited scope (no support for history, no support for
> record types with constraints as complex as bookmarks).
> I wrote it as a github gist so that I could embed code with comments and
> have it syntax hightlighted, although I realize in retrospect that a google
> doc would allow for more flexibility with commenting and etc.
Mmm, this does make it difficult to comment -- and I have many comments :)
There are ways to convert gists to Google docs; could you do that so that
we can manage the conversation?  Or inline the text here and we'll do it by
email, although I think many folks won't appreciate the verbiage.

I think we should run this by the Kinto folks as well.  I feel that if we
can't implement "basically Kinto.js" on top of this then we're probably not
doing the right thing.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Sync-dev mailing list