On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Joseph Scott <[email protected]> wrote: > 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)
I think we're all in agreement. Hooray. =)
