I totally agree with you on the "YAGNI" bit. For low- to medium-volume subscribers (receiving updates at most every few minutes from any given hub), aggregated distribution doesn't really help at all, but still complicates the implementation. Since it's only really useful for big subscribers, I think aggregated distribution should be made optional. It could easily be controlled by an optional parameter at subscribe-time, without breaking compatibility. --Ravi
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Tim Bray <[email protected]> wrote: > > Seems to me that the client model for processing a single vs. > aggregated distribution might be quite a bit different. And also, the > original upstream feed might have used entry/source already (this > makes me nervous about the whole notion of PuSH co-opting <source> for > its own purposes). > > I was wondering if you might want to put an extension element here as > a child of feed, before the entries start, in a pubsubhubbub > namespace, saying "the following are aggregated by the hub". You can > do this safely because Atom has MustIgnore on markup it doesn't > recognize (hint hint). > > [Um, when I read this section, there's a little voice in the back of > my head shouting "YAGNI!"] > > -T >
