+1 . no longer useful in practice. would love to see it go.

Jud

On Mar 3, 5:10 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.
>
>  pubsubhubbub-core-0.3-desync.xml
> 61KViewDownload
>
>  pshb-desync.diff
> 6KViewDownload

Reply via email to