Monica Keller <[email protected]> wrote: > I would rather make it a little bit more generic
Your proposals don't just make it a "little bit more generic." What you are doing is attempting the change fundamental attributes of the protocol. - By arguing for notifications (light pings) instead of pushed data, you're re-introducing all the scalability problems (like thundering herd) that PSHB was explicitly designed to eliminate. - By insisting on JSON, you're attempting to change a generic server-to-server protocol that leverages XML and a decades' worth of tool development into one that is limited to supporting a still relatively new language-specific data format most useful for communicating with client code. - By arguing for hub discovery via HTTP Header, you're asking for a mechanism that can only be used by those who have administrative control over their web servers -- which is not the case for many feed producers who use shared or even out-dated web servers. Thus, invalidating PSHB's goal of allowing any feed on any server to associated with a hub. These do not seem to me what constitutes just "a little bit more generic." bob wyman On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:12 AM, Monica Keller <[email protected]>wrote: > Here was my reasoning > 1- PubSubHubbub is gaining momentum so I would rather make it a little bit > more generic than dilute it's effort releasing an alternative. > 2- PubSubHubbub and Activity Streams are closely promoted and we are moving > away from Atom being the core serialization for activity streams because it > makes the response more complex than it needs to be... think of activities > such as liking, rsvping to events, friending even status updates are way > more verbose than they need to be. > 3- We have been discussing some of these changes in this community for a > while: synchronization, authentication, http based discovery I am just > grouping them together so we could release an iteration of the spec that > supports a concrete use case > > What do you think ? > > > > > On May 19, 2010, at 7:56 PM, Ravi Pinjala <[email protected]> wrote: > > While I can see the value in some of the suggested changes, you're really > talking about a completely new protocol here. Something like allowing > arbitrary data formats, for example, wouldn't work in the current model > where the hub parses the feed and only sends the differences. > > One of the strengths of PuSH (relatively speaking) is that it's a fairly > simple protocol, and works well in a specific use case. I feel like a lot of > the suggested extensions would complicate the protocol disproportionately to > the gains that would be made. > > --Ravi > > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Monica Keller < <[email protected]> > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Guys I just posted a proposal for a new revision to the PubSubHubbub >> spec which includes looking beyond Atom, synchronization and >> authorization. >> >> Let me know what you think >> <http://code.google.com/p/pubsubhubbub/wiki/Pshb_OAuth2> >> http://code.google.com/p/pubsubhubbub/wiki/Pshb_OAuth2 >> >> >> >> On May 12, 5:04 am, Pádraic Brady < <[email protected]>padraic.br >> [email protected]> wrote: >> > Great! Though now I have to update lots of code ;). Good to see it's >> > not dead. >> > >> > Paddy >> > >> > On 12 May 2010, at 07:22, James Holderness <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > FYI, James S just published a new version of the Tombstones draft. >> > >> > > <http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-snell-atompub-tombstones-07.txt> >> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-snell-atompub-tombstones-07.txt >> > >
