This doesn't answer roster management, but an OPML export from the hub of all the available feeds would certainly work for me.
@Nick: Does the hub really need to have a subscriber? If as a publisher I register my feed with the hub it could still keep it in the roster -- the hub just doesn't have to do anything if there are no subscribers, just discard the pings. Although, if there was a firehose delivery mechanism, then you could implicitly call that a subscriber to every feed. ig On Oct 22, 9:37 am, Alexis Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think that's crazy at all. I suppose the question would then > become how to make this 'standard' for roster discovery and > management. > > 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? > > > 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 > > ... > > read more »
