> - It’s not meaningful for Apple Notes’ local edits to only be local. Sure they will render, but if a tree falls and no one hears is, did it make a sound? So let’s ignore local edits.
Why would we ignore local edits? Notes is a note taking application. Not a communications platform. Local edits are the main point of the application.
> - A sentence in Apple Notes isn’t generally considered to have happened until it’s been rendered in every client and users can see it if they look
Of course it has! If I copy my favorite crepe recipe into a note on my phone, then open it up later, I don't care if that note has synced to my laptop. (Or anyone else I might be collaborating with). Local edits are meaningful and important.
The same is true of git. I use git locally on lots of projects that I don't even have any collaborators on, so I can track my work.
From the database standpoint, these are AP systems. They stay available (to reads and writes) in the face of network partitions. The blockchain is .. well, the blockchain is weird. But I think its closest to a CP system. You can't make transactions when you're disconnected from the chain. (If you could, you would risk double-spending).
I consider blockchains closer to traditional databases than eventually-consistent datastores built on CRDTs, because they have coordination and traditional atomic transaction semantics.
Why would we ignore local edits? Notes is a note taking application. Not a communications platform. Local edits are the main point of the application.
> - A sentence in Apple Notes isn’t generally considered to have happened until it’s been rendered in every client and users can see it if they look
Of course it has! If I copy my favorite crepe recipe into a note on my phone, then open it up later, I don't care if that note has synced to my laptop. (Or anyone else I might be collaborating with). Local edits are meaningful and important.
The same is true of git. I use git locally on lots of projects that I don't even have any collaborators on, so I can track my work.
From the database standpoint, these are AP systems. They stay available (to reads and writes) in the face of network partitions. The blockchain is .. well, the blockchain is weird. But I think its closest to a CP system. You can't make transactions when you're disconnected from the chain. (If you could, you would risk double-spending).
I consider blockchains closer to traditional databases than eventually-consistent datastores built on CRDTs, because they have coordination and traditional atomic transaction semantics.