<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Incremental Consistency Guarantees for Replicated Objects · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1609.02434/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1609.02434/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Incremental Consistency Guarantees for Replicated Objects — mentioned by eternalban</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12475381</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1609.02434:12475381</guid><pubDate>Sun, 11 Sep 2016 20:06:53 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;My read of this is that the authors believe they have a &amp;quot;novel&amp;quot; candidate set of universal semantics and an API to encapsulate what seems to be well known patterns in this space. I think this approach is viable in conjunction with reusable components and radically swappable backends: ICG would be the non-moving interface that (per the claims) would allow perfect reuse without modification due to changed storage model. However the typical consumer of products in this space is building high performance and tightly integrated systems. And in terms of contributions to formal definitions, it seems…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1609.02434/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.DC</category></item></channel></rss>
