> The subscribe just cares about getting a > callback on new content. Who cares where > it comes from? Given N subscriptions, it seems more difficult to manage relationships with N hubs than it is to manage a relationship with one hub. (If nothing else, it takes more memory...) Also, being able to minimize the number of hubs that a subscriber works with means that there are likely to be benefits from HTTP keep-alive persistent connections and potentially via hub-based aggregation of notifications. etc. What am I missing?
bob wyman On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Brad Fitzpatrick <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't see the problem with each publisher being a hub. > Why does there need to be a hub of hubs? > > The subscribe just cares about getting a callback on new content. Who > cares where it comes from? > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Bob Wyman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The easy provision of white-label hubs will, of course, lead to the >> creation of many more hubs than might otherwise have existed... This is >> probably a good thing. But, there are issues... >> >> It is interesting, I think, to contemplate what the result would be if >> *every* blog and feed ended up having its own hub. I don't suggest this >> mental experiment because I think that we should seek to achieve such a >> state of affairs, but rather because exploring the "extremes" is always a >> good way to find issues with specification... >> >> Clearly, if every feed was its own hub, we would see a need to build "hubs >> of hubs" in order to simplify the tasks of managing subscriptions, >> controlling message sending patterns, achieving efficiencies through >> minimization of connections, aggregation of notifications, etc. But, it >> seems that doing that given the PSHB spec as it stands would not be easy. >> The problem is that hub discovery depends on data which is published in the >> feed itself and there exists only one class of hubs in the current spec. You >> can't, for example, distinguish between a hub and a "hub of hubs"... Also, >> even if a "single feed hub" were aggregated by one or more hub of hubs, it >> is questionable whether the feed author would know about any of the hubs of >> hubs and thus be able to mention them in the feed. >> >> I think there are issues here that need to be resolved... >> >> bob wyman >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Julien Genestoux < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> We just introduced what we call "white-label hubs" at superfeedr : >>> http://blog.superfeedr.com/API/publishers/pubsubhubbub/white-label-hubs/ >>> >>> In a nutshell : your service can give us access to his stream/firehose >>> and we'll turn that into a PubSubHubbub hub in snap! >>> >>> Examples : >>> - A wordpress.com PubSubHubbub : http://wordpress.superfeedr.com/ >>> - An Identi.ca PubSubHubbub : http://identica.superfeedr.com/ >>> >>> Let me know what you guys think! >>> >>> Ju >>> >>> PS: if you're at RWW's realtime event, come and chat : I am @julien51, >>> the tall french guy wearing a yellow shirt, who looks a little bit tired >>> (guess why!) >>> >>> -- >>> Julien Genestoux, >>> >>> http://twitter.com/julien51 >>> http://superfeedr.com >>> >>> +1 (415) 254 7340 >>> +33 (0)9 70 44 76 29 >>> >> >> >
