Brewers "CAP Twelve Years Later" paper was to me very unsatisfying since it basically advocated that systems should be CA but then have a special mode where you can recover from partitions. The problem is that having code that can successfully recover from a partition when consistency is gone ends up looking exactly like the code that you'd write if you're on a nosql database except it won't be well-tested.
In this paper he's toeing the Spanner line which takes the more traditional CP route, but tries to make partitions rare and achieve high availability.
But I remain confused why Brewer had adopted this confusing stance on his own CAP theorem what causes a lot of people to think it's not real or that it's been solved, which ignores the real tradeoffs. Spanner doesn't "solve" CAP of course. The "12 years later" paper though was really a disservice.
In this paper he's toeing the Spanner line which takes the more traditional CP route, but tries to make partitions rare and achieve high availability.
But I remain confused why Brewer had adopted this confusing stance on his own CAP theorem what causes a lot of people to think it's not real or that it's been solved, which ignores the real tradeoffs. Spanner doesn't "solve" CAP of course. The "12 years later" paper though was really a disservice.