Yay! I kind of always hated that parameter too. ;) On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Blaine Cook <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi all, > > Mike, Alexis, and I had a very productive Thursday in London > discussing the finer points of the PSHB spec; herewith a few proposals > to improve the specification and hopefully enable some functionality > that many of us are interested in. > > The first proposal is to remove the sync/async hub.verify parameter; > chatting with Brett, it seems that this parameter used to be > meaningful, but with the addition of automatic subscription > refreshing, subscribers must now effectively support the async mode, > and all subscribers must effectively support the sync mode in order to > avoid timing issues. > > The consensus in London was that removing the distinction simplifies > the spec, simplifies the implementation of hubs, and has virtually no > impact on subscribers. In addition, it has the positive side-effect of > ensuring that subscribers must understand a common and consistent set > of subscription response codes; more on that to follow. > > It's worth noting that this change is backwards-compatible, in that > hubs can safely ignore the hub.verify parameter so long as they employ > synchronous verification in all cases (which is what the reference hub > does already), with the slight modification that subscribers may > receive 202 Accepted responses in reply to verification requests at > any time. > > A diff against Version 0.3 of the PSHB spec, and the complete modified > spec is included. > > b. > -- Jeff Lindsay http://progrium.com
