On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Jay Rossiter <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 3/4/2010 12:14 PM, Brett Slatkin wrote: > > I agree with you that in practice it's easiest if the proxy strips out > any source-feed hubs. This is especially true in a multi-datacenter > scenario where proxied feeds may not be consistent in all geographies > (thus only the overriding hub could have a complete picture of the > feed). > > However, I don't like how this reduces the control of the publisher > over how they syndicate their content. It'd be nice if the originating > hub could be used for syndicating the proxied content as well. To do > that with PuSHPress, you'd have to configure the plug-in to also allow > for the proxied URL to be pushed through that hub, right? > > What do you all think? > > In theory, I agree that it would be nice, but I don't think it's > practical in most cases. Since WP (as an example) is using a simple internal > hub, they don't currently have to worry about http polling, or hub chaining. > For them to support publishing of the proxied URL they need to add polling > support at the least, and it slows down the 'near realtime' goal of PuSH > unless the proxy is also doing backwards publish notification.
The proxy would notify the originating hub that the proxied content is available. The originating hub would fetch the proxied feed and then deliver to all subscribers. This requires the WP hub to know the proxied feed is authorized and to be sure to post the source feed and proxied feeds on different URLs. I don't think it would slow anything down, but the dance is probably more complex than average users are going to want to configure.
