Aha. I was not aware that a patch was sought. Or perhaps I was and then stupidly forgot (this is likelier, sorry).
Let me see if we can propose something. alexis On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Jeff Lindsay <[email protected]> wrote: > As I've communicated before, Hub to Hub communication can be done once > Hubbub supports fat publishing. I sent Brett an elaborate method for > verification a publisher (the major concern for fat/webhook/push > publishing), but I've since realized it might be simplest to do an IP based > solution. > Anyway, Alexis and from what I recall, Brett as well, agree with me. Brett's > leaving it up to the community to provide a patch to the spec for it. > Tentatively I was going to propose something, but I haven't had time. > -jeff > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Ivan Žužak <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Thanks Alexis! I responded to Mike on the blog. In short -- chaining >> of hubs would not require changing the protocol, just the types of >> components which implement parts of the protocol. Instead of having >> just pure publishers, subscribers and hubs, there would be components >> that implement multiple roles (e.g. a hub that supports chaining would >> be both a hub and a subscriber). As Jeff said - this can all be broken >> down to webhooks. >> >> Regular PSHB subscription would still work as before. >> Publishing/filtering would just be an extension which a hub MAY >> support. Of course, this requires some kind of fallback negotiation >> for cases when a component doesn't support an extension requested by >> another component. >> >> Ivan >> >> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 19:21, Alexis Richardson >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Ivan, all, >> > >> > Mike Bridgen has elaborated on this in the comments to the post. >> > >> > I am copying his comments here: >> > >> > --- >> > >> > pubsubhubbub (0.1, anyway) doesn’t chain together in the way you’ve >> > illustrated, because it’s not symmetrical — hubs don’t get subscribed >> > to other hubs (or indeed, subscribe themselves). While you wouldn’t >> > have to change the protocol, you would have to change the idea of what >> > a hub is. But I guess you are setting out to do that anyway. >> > >> > For processing I can subscribe the remote processing service to the >> > hub, and subscribe myself to the remote processor. Taking into account >> > the verification, it would probably go >> > 1. Me -> Remote: Please give me a token for this hub to post to you >> > 2. Me -> Remote: Please subscribe me to you >> > 3. Me -> Hub: Please subscribe Remote using this token >> > This requires me and the remote processing service to understand some >> > generalised bits of PSHB, but nothing extra of the hub (I don’t >> > think). >> > >> > --- >> > >> > Cheers, >> > >> > alexis >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Alexis Richardson >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Ivan >> >> >> >> Possibly related to what Jeff says: how do you think hub-hub chaining >> >> works? >> >> >> >> Separately does PSHB subscription still work in your model? >> >> >> >> Great article btw. >> >> >> >> alexis >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Jeff Lindsay <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >>> You should look into the greater webhooks ecosystem (slowly being >> >>> called the >> >>> Evented Web). It's all about the things your talking about here. >> >>> http://webhooks.org >> >>> Of particular interest might be Scriptlets (currently undergoing a >> >>> major >> >>> upgrade) and DrEval. >> >>> -jeff >> >>> >> >>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 5:20 AM, Ivan Žužak <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Hi all, >> >>>> >> >>>> Just wanted to point to my new blog post - http://bit.ly/5PMXGq. In >> >>>> short, it's about extending PSHB to support not only real-time >> >>>> delivery of feeds but also their filtering and processing via 3rd >> >>>> party services. As I write in the post, I've discussed some of these >> >>>> ideas a few months back with Julien (over email) and Brett (over >> >>>> FriendFeed) but never got around to starting a broader discussion >> >>>> with >> >>>> concrete ideas. >> >>>> >> >>>> Feedback is welcome and if it's mostly positive I think that would be >> >>>> a good signal to start defining an extension to the protocol which >> >>>> supports this. >> >>>> >> >>>> Thanks, >> >>>> Ivan >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Jeff Lindsay >> >>> http://webhooks.org -- Make the web more programmable >> >>> http://shdh.org -- A party for hackers and thinkers >> >>> http://tigdb.com -- Discover indie games >> >>> http://progrium.com -- More interesting things >> >>> >> >> >> > > > > > -- > Jeff Lindsay > http://webhooks.org -- Make the web more programmable > http://shdh.org -- A party for hackers and thinkers > http://tigdb.com -- Discover indie games > http://progrium.com -- More interesting things >
