This is really interesting. On the one hand, it seems like this should be the client's concern. It feels "wrong" to have the server keep track of what's effectively client-side state and need to...
This is really interesting. On the one hand, it seems like this should be the client's concern. It feels "wrong" to have the server keep track of what's effectively client-side state and need to do work to keep the clients updated whenever anything happens that they might care about.
But on the other hand, it also massively simplifies cache invalidation, which is a really difficult problem (one of the only two, as a famous saying goes). There's simply no way to do cache invalidation as reliably and elegantly without having the server involved like this.
I'm not totally sure what I think about it yet, but I think it's a fascinating idea and I'm glad to see someone trying it.
This is really interesting. On the one hand, it seems like this should be the client's concern. It feels "wrong" to have the server keep track of what's effectively client-side state and need to do work to keep the clients updated whenever anything happens that they might care about.
But on the other hand, it also massively simplifies cache invalidation, which is a really difficult problem (one of the only two, as a famous saying goes). There's simply no way to do cache invalidation as reliably and elegantly without having the server involved like this.
I'm not totally sure what I think about it yet, but I think it's a fascinating idea and I'm glad to see someone trying it.