On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 2:22 PM, igrigorik <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ok, so let me try rephrasing the problem. The major problem is not the > Hub, or the spec, but the need to crawl thousands of sites to find the > feeds in the first place. Of course, the hub already knows about them, > hence this discussion. > > Would it be crazy to then expose a mechanism to enumerate all of the > feeds that a hub tracks, and let the client then subscribe to them? >
The other obstacle would be that the hub only 'knows' about feeds that have at least one subscriber, and doesn't know when a feed goes away. -Nick > > An obvious obstacle is private feeds, but I wonder if that can be > handled as a special case? > > ig > > On Oct 21, 1:55 pm, Marcus Herou <[email protected]> wrote: > > Well... We can as well publish a firehose but currently our business > > model is not aimed at that. > > > > I was not talking about a service rather a technology which could take > > the crawling business to another level by aggregating hundreds of hubs > > and creating something which effectively can deliver tb/s bandwidth by > > having decentralized servers and data. We are still limited you know > > by our infrastructure even though it have gb/s to the internet. > > > > Since the realtime web is currently still very small all of us need to > > poll something even you I presume to be able to create a pub/sub arch. > > In that remark our companies are quite similar, you chose to aggregate > > and publish your data and make a business of it. We aggregate and > > refine the data and make business out of that. > > > > Dont take me wrong I really like what you do but i am not looking for > > a data supplier at this time ( might change though ). But if I would > > look in the data supplier direction you are currently in my/our top > > ten list :) > > > > Skickat från min iPhone > > > > On Oct 21, 5:03 pm, Julien Genestoux <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Hum...http://superfeedr.com? > > > > > "Putting ressources in common" is definetely one of the key reasons why > we > > > built superfeedr. More about that there : > http://blog.superfeedr.com/gospel/something-stupid/ > > > > > And yes, we have a firehose available. > > > > > Julien > > > > > -- > > > Julien Genestoux, > > > > >http://twitter.com/julien51http://superfeedr.com > > > > > +1 (415) 254 7340 > > > +33 (0)9 70 44 76 29 > > > > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 5:26 AM, Marcus Herou < > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > Feedtree looks cool.... but updated 2006 ? > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Nick Johnson (Google) < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Alexis Richardson < > > > >> [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >>> Hmmm ... gossiptorrent? > > > > > >> Feedtree. > > > > > >>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 7:23 AM, Marcus Herou > > > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >>> > Hi. > > > > > >>> > We host a search app which is based on feeds of > blogs/twitter/forums/ > > > >>> > news etc. We are as you are mentioning polling everything like > crazy > > > >>> > and it seems like a total waste of everyones resources. > > > > > >>> > So this means that subscribing to something which would > potentially > > > >>> > deliver the material to us would be great not just for us but as > well > > > >>> > all sites we are crawling. > > > > > >>> > However who would like to open up a firehose for free for > everyone to > > > >>> > consume ? It will for sure consume a lot of bandwidth and a few > > > >>> > subscribers will consume most of the bandwidth with this model. > > > >>> > I thought of something that might solve this issue. Consider the > > > >>> > following: > > > > > >>> > 1) > > > >>> > * Charge for the bandwidth (wordpress.com does this with flat > fee) > > > > > >>> > 2) > > > >>> > * Everyone that have firehose consuming needs should as well > start a > > > >>> > hub to show good faith and morale. > > > >>> > * Add support in firehose enabled hubs to share state (with a > > > >>> > master ?) > > > >>> > * A firehose enabled hub can subscribe to a master hub which > makes > > > >>> > sure that the subscriber as well fulfils some form of contract > (i.e. > > > >>> > actually updating/delivering feeds) > > > >>> > * Each firehose enabled hub must be public and everyone can > subscribe > > > >>> > to the feeds like as of current. > > > >>> > * To share load equally (morale part) then subscribers should > > > >>> > subscribe to a loadbalanced dns name or some form of delegate > > > >>> > lb.pshb.com = master hub > > > >>> > Example 1: lb.pshb.com resolves to pshb.tailsweep.com > > > >>> > pshb.google.com, effectively DNS-roundrobin > > > >>> > Example 2: lb.pshb.com delegates to any active master connected > hub > > > >>> > in some way. > > > > > >>> > This might be too complex to implement and bottlenecks occur at > the > > > >>> > master but systems like Hadoop have bottlenecks in terms of the > > > >>> > NameNode (master) and it seems to perform just perfect so it can > be > > > >>> > done. However each firehose hub probably need to persist each > feed for > > > >>> > a certain amount of time before purging it. > > > > > >>> > Anyway this was just a thought. We at Tailsweep probably could > help in > > > >>> > making this happen if there exists some interest. > > > > > >>> > Cheers > > > > > >>> > //Marcus > > > > > >>> > On Oct 20, 8:41 pm, Bob Wyman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>> >> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 11:22 AM, igrigorik <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >>> >> > Specifically, if we treat 'firehose' as any bundle of > > > >>> >> > feeds (all, or some), then a hub could define > > > >>> >> > multiple firehose streams. > > > > > >>> >> There should be no question that there is tremendous utility in > being > > > >>> able > > > >>> >> to compose all sorts of "bundles" of topics into distinct feeds. > It is > > > >>> >> probably also the case that we can identify some number of such > > > >>> bundles that > > > >>> >> would be useful to a large number of subscribers. On the other > hand, > > > >>> many > > > >>> >> bundles will be very specific and only useful to one or a small > number > > > >>> of > > > >>> >> subscribers. In fact, I think what we'll see is that once we > have the > > > >>> core > > > >>> >> PSHB defined, we'll then see innovation in the definition of > "down > > > >>> stream" > > > >>> >> services whose function is precisely to build and deliver such > > > >>> bundles. Some > > > >>> >> of these services will aggregate groups of topics while others > will > > > >>> focus > > > >>> >> instead on creating content-based streams -- they will bundle > together > > > >>> >> individual entries based on the content of those entries rather > than > > > >>> simply > > > >>> >> combining all entries from some set of topics. > > > > > >>> >> I think we should be careful not to force too much of the burden > of > > > >>> bundling > > > >>> >> or aggregating into the core PSHB hub specification. If we want > to > > > >>> address > > > >>> >> the challenges of building bundles or aggregations, I think it > best to > > > >>> do so > > > >>> >> in secondary or companion specifications. This will keep the > core > > > >>> cleaner > > > >>> >> and easy to understand while also allowing the core to be > deployed > > > >>> without > > > >>> >> being delayed by discussions over non-core issues. > > > > > >>> >> Having argued against making the core more complicated by > extending it > > > >>> to > > > >>> >> include creating aggregate topics, I still suggest that it would > be > > > >>> useful > > > >>> >> to have the core system define a common means to obtain a pure > > > >>> "firehose" > > > >>> >> feed of all topics. The current hub spec works for people who > only > > > >>> want > > > >>> >> "none or some" of the topics served by the hub. I suggest that > we > > > >>> expand > > > >>> >> this to have hubs know how to provide "none, some or all" of the > > > >>> topics. > > > >>> >> The reason for adding support of "all topics" is that we know, > without > > > >>> much > > > >>> >> question, that such an "all topics" feed will be required by > many of > > > >>> the > > > >>> >> downstream services that we will one day be relying on to create > more > > > >>> finely > > > >>> >> defined aggregations. Given that this specific feed will be > commonly > > > >>> >> required, it would be best if we had a common mechanism for a > > > >>> downstream > > > >>> >> service/subscriber to request that feed and that we set some > > > >>> expectations > > > >>> >> for how that feed will be formatted and delivered (i.e. Atom > entries, > > > >>> >> persistent connections, chunked content model, ...). It would be > very > > > >>> >> cumbersome for a downstream filtering/aggregating service to > need to > > > >>> puzzle > > > >>> >> through service specific mechanisms for discovering how to > obtain a > > > >>> firehose > > > >>> >> feed of "all topics" from many different hubs. > > > > > >>> >> bob wyman > > > > > >>> >> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 11:22 AM, igrigorik <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > >>> >> > Right, so how does the smart hub aggregate the feeds? Does it > then > > > >>> >> > have to crawl to find the list? That wouldn't be very useful. > Having > > > >>> >> > said that... > > > > > >>> >> > +1 For 'smart, aggregating hub generating a synthetic feed' > > > >>> >> > +1 For XRD discovery of the firehose endpoint. > > > > > >>> >> > Thinking a bit more about the firehose, what about making it > more > > > >>> >> > flexible. Specifically, if we treat 'firehose' as any bundle > of > > > >>> feeds > > > >>> >> > (all, or some), then a hub could define multiple firehose > streams. > > > >>> For > > > >>> >> > example, at PostRank we classify feeds by topic, so if someone > > > >>> wanted > > > >>> >> > to subscribe to "Technology", we could expose that as a > firehose so > > > >>> >> > the user doesn't have to subscribe to every feed in that > topic. In > > > >>> >> > essence, a firehose stream is then any bundle of feeds. > > > > > >>> >> > This may be overloading the hub spec but the overall mechanics > would > > > >>> >> > be: > > > >>> >> > - A (super)user can declare a firehose endpoint > > > >>> >> > - A (super)user is then able to add or remove subscriptions > from > > > >>> the > > > >>> >> > firehose to create arbitrary aggregation streams > > > >>> >> > - A subscriber uses XRD to discover the available aggregation > > > >>> streams > > > >>> >> > - Firehose with 'all' feeds is a special case of the above, > where > > > >>> all > > > >>> >> > feeds are present > > > > > >>> >> > This definitely adds more complexity into the hub... The > alternative > > > >>> >> > is of course for the publisher to create a syndicated feed and > > > >>> publish > > > >>> >> > that directly as a standalone feed. Still trying to weight the > up/ > > > >>> >> > downsides in my head, but want to put it out there as an idea. > > > > > >>> >> > -------- > > > >>> >> > Ilya Grigorik > > > >>> >> > postrank.com > > > > > >> -- > > > >> Nick Johnson, Developer Programs Engineer, App Engine > > > >> Google Ireland Ltd. :: Registered in Dublin, Ireland, Registration > Number: > > > >> 368047 > > > > > > -- > > > > Marcus Herou CTO and co-founder Tailsweep AB > > > > +46702561312 > > > > [email protected] > > > >http://www.tailsweep.com/ > -- Nick Johnson, Developer Programs Engineer, App Engine Google Ireland Ltd. :: Registered in Dublin, Ireland, Registration Number: 368047
