Good point on http headers for discovery but definitely I am not
asking for only JSON or for light pings... that would be a big change
On 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.
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]
> 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
On May 12, 5:04 am, Pádraic Brady <[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
