All right, that makes sense - I hadn't thought of source feeds simply switching hubs. And that's a good approach, too. I'll bear that in mind.
-- Eric On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Jay Rossiter <[email protected]> wrote: > On 3/10/2010 1:07 PM, Eric Mill wrote: > > If that's really the answer, that's pretty disappointing. PuSH isn't > worth as much to me if I still have to poll client-side. > > I could maybe stomach infrequently resubscribing, "just to make sure", > but if I did that, then I'd want to know that if I did miss updates in > between resubscribes, that I'd get a backlog pushed to me of any > missed updates. > > > PuSH is not a lossless protocol. The feed could switch hubs and stop > notifying the one that you're subscribed to, and the only way that you'll > ever know that is if you poll the original feed. > > PuSH isn't a replacement for polling - it's an augmentation. It's a > replacement for the thundering herd of updates when ping is used on a wide > scale. > > For my PuSH subscriber, feeds are polled on their regular frequency, > however when a PuSH is received, that counts as if it were a poll. e.g. If > polling happens once per hour, for example, and a push comes in at the > 30-minute mark, the next poll won't occur until 1 hour after the push is > received. For active feeds, a poll is rarely required. For inactive feeds, > polling ensures that we never miss anything and that hub information hasn't > changed. > > -- > > Jay Rossiter | Software Engineer/System Administrator > Pioneering RSS Advertising Solutions > > [email protected] | Phone: 503.896.6187 | Fax: 503.235.2216 > Website: www.pheedo.com | RSS: www.pheedo.info/index.xml >
<<pheedo.gif>>
