Please do!
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Jeff Lindsay <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
