Skip to content
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

Missing Details: Importance of Ensuring Order of Saved Messages #75

Open
pabloariasmora opened this issue Dec 30, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

Comments

@pabloariasmora
Copy link

Description

In the Telemetry Archiving pattern documentation, there is a lack of detailed information regarding the question: "Is it important to ensure the order of saved messages?" This information is crucial for implementers to understand the implications of message ordering in IoT data archiving.

Current State

The documentation currently lists this question under the "Considerations" section but provides no detailed answer for either the "yes" or "no" scenarios.

Proposed Improvement

We need to add detailed explanations for both cases:

  1. If it is important to ensure the order of saved messages:

    • Explain why order matters
    • Provide examples of use cases where order is critical
    • Discuss potential implications of not maintaining order
  2. If it is not important to ensure the order of saved messages:

    • Explain scenarios where order might be less critical
    • Discuss alternative approaches (e.g., using timestamps)
    • Highlight any potential benefits of not maintaining strict order

Impact

Adding this information will help developers and architects make informed decisions about their IoT data archiving strategies, potentially improving system design and data analysis capabilities.

Additional Context

This issue relates to the Telemetry Archiving pattern described at:
https://iotatlas.net/en/patterns/telemetry_archiving/

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant