I see it's out there.

http://github.com/barinek/pubsubhubbub-rb

Well done, Michael!

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Brett Slatkin <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'd say the more implementations the better, especially if you have
> tests to prove correctness. Whenever you want to publish it, Mike, let
> the group know and I'll be sure to update the Hubs wiki with a link.
> Thanks.
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Michael Barinek <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Yes, I've taken a look at webglue. I also have something similar in Ruby and
>> Java - light weight stack/spec implementation, using just Rack or Jetty
>> handlers.
>>
>> There are a few differences, although the main difference is that this is an
>> actual port of Google's Python reference implementation to Ruby. Again, not
>> sure if it's useful, but thought I might post it.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> Michael Caudy wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Michael,
>>>
>>> Are you aware of webglue? It's a working, nearly full implementation of
>>> the pubhubsubbub 0.2 spec.
>>>
>>> It is a very elegant implementation - only  about 300 lines of code -
>>>  built on the sinatra ruby web framework. Sinatra itself is only about 2000
>>> lines of code, yet still very powerful.
>>>
>>> I have been studying it and other python and ruby pshb implementations to
>>> clearly understand the spec, and to plan an OO-PHP based implementation of
>>> pshb in Drupal.
>>>
>>> Have a look at webglue. Its a nice piece of work, and you can either build
>>> on it, or use it to guide your own ruby implementation.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Brett Slatkin <[email protected]
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>    On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 8:54 AM, Michael Barinek <[email protected]
>>>    <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>     > Does anyone know if there is any special licensing or notices I
>>>    need to
>>>     > include (other than the apache 2 license) to open up a ruby port
>>>    of the
>>>     > specification? any other examples out there?
>>>
>>>    No I don't think so. You should be all good. Would be awesome to see
>>>    this!
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Reply via email to