For the record, keep in mind it needs to verify the publisher owns the URL it's posting updates for in a way that a hub can do as well.
Should I pull up my original proposal email? I don't think I ever posted it to the list. That'll start a new thread for this too. -jeff On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Alexis Richardson < [email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > > -- 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
