Build 14: New code for injecting keystrokes

[Freddie]

Another option (food for thought):

Settings are saved with a version #, starting at 0, incremented by 1 every time the file is updated. The version number is also appended with a unique identifier specifying which computer the settings came from (maybe a MAC ID, some kind of product ID, or something similar).

When multiple computers connect, they compare version stamps. Say we have C1 and C2 connecting to each other. C1 has a settings file with version stamp as, say... 18-C1, and C2 has a settings file with version 16-C1. This indicates that C2 has previously received settings from C1, and automatically updates to 18-C1 from C1.

Now, if you update the settings on C2, they would be saved with the new version stamp 19-C2. This would be sent along with the last NON-C2 version stamp that the settings were updated from, and C1 would look at the incoming stamps, see that C2 has been updated from 18-C1 (which is C1's current version and the last non-C2 version stamp that was used) to 19-C2, and so it determines it should update too (since it's on 18-C1), and now saves it's version stamp as 19-C2.

Now for the part where things might get a little less straightforward... Both computers are on 26-C1, and you disconnect both computers. You do an update on both C1 and C2, and then reconnect them. Version stamps are compared, and since both have been updated independently, a "fork" is created in the settings tree. A dialog pops up, notifying the user that the settings from both of them do not match, and allowing them to choose whether to use the settings from C1, settings from C2, or leave them in a forked state.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me there are basically two main cases. In one case, the Mojos are running simultaneously and talking to each other. In that situation, whenever you change one Mojo, it tells the others. All changes immediately propagate. There's no need for version numbers or anything else.

The second case is what you call "less straightforward." It occurs when you change Mojo A while it's not talking to Mojo B, and then you change Mojo B while it's not talking to Mojo A. When they find themselves in communication again, they have no way to know which one was updated more recently.

If the first case doesn't require a solution, and your solution doesn't solve the second problem, what is it useful for?

Those two cases aren't logically exclusive so there must be other circumstances, but I'm having trouble getting a sense of how common they would be. Can you give me an example where version numbers would help?

EDIT: I also actually rather like the idea of "pushing" settings from one Mojo to the others (mentioned by Aragent above), ALA how Jamba handles things. I believe that would work rather nicely.

I'll look into Jamba. Thanks for suggesting it.