On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Brett Slatkin <[email protected]> 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?
I think in the general picture of feed proxies people expect them to take care of distributing the feed, which in this case includes pings as well. Chaining pings out from most authoritative (PuSHPress for example) to less authoritative (feed proxy) until it gets to the end feed consumer (Google Reader, Bloglines, etc.) makes the most sense. This allows for feed proxies to alter the ping data with their tracking/ads. The act of using a feed proxy implies that you are willing to give up some level of control over how your feed is distributed, this includes pings. Now if I were a feed proxy I go one step further. When I find a hub already listed in the original feed I'd let the user know and ask them what they want me to do: - Should the feed proxy chain the pings, replacing the hub line with it's own (explain the pros/cons) - Or leave the originating hub (explain pros/cons) -- Joseph Scott [email protected] http://josephscott.org/
