I think you may be reading more into these proposals than is meant. Inline...
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Bob Wyman <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > > Light pings would be optional and certainly not the recommended usage. > - 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. > > I think Monica is proposing that JSON is supported in addition to Atom/RSS. Not replacing them. PubSubHubbub defines useful protocol interactions around subscriptions and hubs which don't directly exist within WebHooks. It seems like a shame to either duplicate or reinvent those aspects of the technology. > > - 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. > > Once again I imagine that HTTP headers would be a fallback from HTML based discovery. > > 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 >>> >> >> >
