Yes. Although that symmetry might be functionally or high level in practice than meaning the exact same interface/protocol. In my mind, it means both use HTTP POST. ;)
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Alexis Richardson < [email protected]> wrote: > Symmetric: means that the model for a subscriber being updated by a > publisher is the same as the model for a publisher updating a > subscriber. > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Ivan Žužak <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > -- 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
