6 ms·
The way you're defining "eventually consistent" seems to imply it means "the current state of the system is eventually consistent," which is not what I think th
by anyonecancode 10mo ago
The way you're defining "eventually consistent" seems to imply it means "the current state of the system is eventually consistent," which is not what I think that means. Rather, it means "for any given previous state of the system, the current state will eventually reflect that."
"Eventually consistent," as I understand it, always implies a lag, whereas the way you're using it seems to imply that at some point there is no lag.
- kukkeliskuu 10mo agoI was not trying to "define" eventually consistent, but to point out that people typically use the term quite loosely, for example when referring to the state of the system-of-systems of multiple microservices or event sourcing. Those are never guaranteed to be in consistent state in the sense of C in ACID, which means it becomes the responsibility of the systems that use the data to handle the consistency. I see this often ignored, causing user interfaces to be flaky.
- econ 10mo agoInconsistent sounds so bad :)
- kukkeliskuu 10mo agoI know. That is why it is useful way to think about it, because it both is true and makes you think.