New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Proposal for lazy-loading room members to improve initial sync speed and client RAM usage #1227

Open
benparsons opened this Issue May 10, 2018 · 22 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
9 participants
@benparsons
Copy link
Member

benparsons commented May 10, 2018

@ara4n

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

ara4n commented May 28, 2018

Implementation over at matrix-org/synapse#2970

@ara4n

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

ara4n commented Jun 10, 2018

It's worth noting that lazyloading members is entirely orthogonal to paginating the room list - in an ideal world we could end up supporting both.

@ara4n

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

ara4n commented Jun 10, 2018

rolling this back to proposal-review as even though there’s been informal thumbs up from @richvdh and @erikjohnston, the whole thing is blocked on #688 before it can progress to completion and the proposal should be formally reviewed in the context of #688

@turt2live turt2live referenced this issue Aug 14, 2018

Open

Lazy loading #1511

0 of 5 tasks complete

@turt2live turt2live added this to To do: proposals (prioritized) in August 2018 r0 Aug 14, 2018

@richvdh

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

richvdh commented Aug 16, 2018

given that I've been busily merging PRs which implement this, and I gather that client-side support is likewise basically done, it seems like this is basically being treated as ready.

In other words: I'd suggest that anyone with objections makes them quickly, and it would be nice if the doc could be updated to clarify the current state.

@richvdh

This comment has been minimized.

@turt2live

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

turt2live commented Aug 20, 2018

I vote that this MSC should enter the final comment period with the view of having it be a spec PR next week. Can the Spec Core Team either approve going into FCP or comment with any concerns. Those outside the team with concerns/suggestions are also welcome to raise them.

(also this has been in review for a while now, but no one updated the labels)

@turt2live turt2live moved this from To do: proposals (not overly prioritized) to To do: client-server (prioritized) in August 2018 r0 Aug 20, 2018

@ara4n

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

ara4n commented Aug 20, 2018

I've been using this on riot/web + matrix.org and it seems to be working okay. People seem to have religious objections to the way it special cases members (as opposed to paginating rooms or whatever), but it seems like a good enough solution for now.

@uhoreg

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

uhoreg commented Aug 21, 2018

I'm going to abstain on voting due to lack of bandwidth to try to process this, and I trust that it has been sufficiently picked at by other people.

@richvdh

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

richvdh commented Aug 21, 2018

Again the comments need cleaning up and integrating, but at least this one is clear enough to merit entering FCP

@anoadragon453

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

anoadragon453 commented Aug 21, 2018

I'm happy with this entering FCP

@Half-Shot

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

Half-Shot commented Nov 3, 2018

Should something have happened with regards to FCPs?

@anoadragon453

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

anoadragon453 commented Nov 3, 2018

@mscbot fcp merge

@anoadragon453 anoadragon453 added the T-Core label Nov 3, 2018

@mscbot

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

mscbot commented Nov 3, 2018

Team member @anoadragon453 has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged teams:

No concerns currently listed.

Once a majority of reviewers approve (and none object), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up!

See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.

@Half-Shot

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

Half-Shot commented Nov 3, 2018

Does @ara4n need to make a PR with the proposal?

@anoadragon453

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

anoadragon453 commented Nov 3, 2018

Hmm, is everything listed here currently already implemented? Or does the spec still lack any needed lazy loading documentation?

@Half-Shot

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

Half-Shot commented Nov 3, 2018

Not sure, I think given its in the wild now we should be trying to prioritize the spec work

@erikjohnston

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

erikjohnston commented Nov 5, 2018

@mscbot reviewed

Assuming that the proposal matches what was implemented in synapse

@richvdh

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

richvdh commented Nov 5, 2018

I think it's a bit late now to worry about an FCP.

Anyway, we had 5 votes for an FCP back in August. We should consider the proposal approved and move this to spec-pr-missing

@erikjohnston

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

erikjohnston commented Nov 5, 2018

Anyway, we had 5 votes for an FCP back in August. We should consider the proposal approved and move this to spec-pr-missing

Oh yes, didn't see that. Agreed.

@richvdh

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

richvdh commented Nov 5, 2018

Does @ara4n need to make a PR with the proposal?

(no, we're grandfathering old google-docs MSCs into the process.)

@anoadragon453

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

anoadragon453 commented Nov 5, 2018

Seeing as the majority of this MSC predated the mscbot, already received majority approval, and survived a substantially long period thereafter, we'll consider this MSC now in the Spec PR phase.

@mscbot fcp cancel

@mscbot

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

mscbot commented Nov 5, 2018

@anoadragon453 proposal cancelled.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment