Not sure what "symmetric" implies exactly, but if it means that publisher, subscriber and hub define roles, not components, and that a component may implement multiple roles -- then that's what I have in mind also. A component may thus, for example, both subscribe and be subscribed to. So, yeah, this sounds like an option to be specified.
Cheers, Ivan On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 20:45, Alexis Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > Ivan > > Thanks! I am cc'ing Mike. > > I reckon that our contention is that being BOTH a (publishing) hub AND > a subscriber requires treating the protocol as symmetric. > > This may require specifying, ideally as an option for PSHB. > > alexis > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 7:42 PM, 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 >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
