Section 3.1.2: Remote desktop

[SpencerDawkins]

From @acbegen

Section 3.1.2: Remote desktop

Why is this one to many? It could many to many as well. Think of a co-editing of a file by multiple users at the same time.

@acbegen I don't understand this as your example provided is a one to many - one file, many users editing. It is possible that there is a many to many - but in all the existing implementations generally the "server" handles a single machine at a time (with the notable exception of say, KVMs that do IP forwarding). I'm not sure this is worth changing, unless there's something I've missed or misunderstood here?

[acbegen]

one to many - one file, many users editing

To me this is many-to-many. Multiple users are editing maybe a single file but still multiple inputs and multiple outputs.

[SpencerDawkins]

@acbegen and @fiestajetsam,

one to many - one file, many users editing

To me this is many-to-many. Multiple users are editing maybe a single file but still multiple inputs and multiple outputs.

So, is the text causing confusion, because

• to each user, this looks like many users-to-many users - we are all working on a resource, and we all see all of the changes to the resource -
• but is likely implemented as many users-to-one resource, to allow at least some level of concurrency locking, and one resource-to-many users, to reflect changes from one user back to the user making changes ("it worked"), and to all the other users ("Ali made this change, the shared resource has been updated, please adjust your understanding of the resource's shared state")?

If this is actually many users -to-many users, so that there is no single place where the resource's state is stored, that's different, and we definitely need to describe the use case that way.