Julien Genestoux <[email protected]> wrote: > Indeed, the virtual feed approach is definetely our prefered > option and the one we took for our track feeds.
In your implementation, if your hub is processing a multi-entry feed and a filter I specify matches only one of the potentially many updated entries in the feed, what will you deliver to my call-back URL? Will you deliver the entire feed or just the single entry that matched the filter? If an update to a single source feed matches many filters, it would seem that you would need to deliver a fresh copy of the matched data for each of the filters that matched since each filter defines a distinct virtual feed. Is that correct? bob wyman On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Julien Genestoux <[email protected] > wrote: > Indeed, the virtual feed approach is definetely our prefered option and the > one we took for our track feeds. This way, they do not interfere in any way > with the core protocol. > > > On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Alexis Richardson <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Monica >> >> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Monica Keller <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > for hubs to provide >> > "Virtual" Topic Urls. One example of this would be a firehose url with >> > parameters for filtering. Also outside the scope of the spec would be >> > for hubs to promote their virtual topic urls like Julien just did. >> > >> > This will be helpful as subscribers don't have to subscribe to raw >> > topic urls one by one and can use the virtual or aggregated topic urls >> > from the Service Provider >> >> I think "virtual topics" are a very good idea and a way to open the >> door to (federatable) subscriptions for filtered streams of many >> kinds. >> >> alexis >> >> >> > Thoughts ? >> > >> > On Jul 1, 10:13 am, Julien Genestoux <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> Hey, I don't mean to interrupt... but maybe this is part of the >> conversation >> >> : Superfeedr announced its track feature today : >> http://blog.superfeedr.com/track/filter/xmpp/pubsubhubbub/track/ >> >> >> >> You can subscribe to keywords accross all the feeds that we host (more >> than >> >> 800 hubs now) or the feeds we have for the default hub. >> >> >> >> We want to get more filtering done... but it's obviously a quite >> complex >> >> task with high frequency publishing! >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> >> julien >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 7:04 PM, John Panzer <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > A topic: URI scheme? >> >> > -- >> >> > John Panzer / Google >> >> > [email protected] / abstractioneer.org < >> http://www.abstractioneer.org/> / >> >> > @jpanzer >> >> >> >> > On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 5:22 AM, Alexis Richardson < >> [email protected]>wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Danny Briere < >> [email protected]> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > This is interesting, because I think we may be more concerned with >> the >> >> >> > "topic model" than the content filtering. So we have some >> questions >> >> >> > here: >> >> >> >> >> > 1) What is the current thinking / discussion / issues about the >> topic >> >> >> > model? I've searched the recent postings trying to find >> references >> >> >> > and more specifics....is there a URL I can look at? >> >> >> >> >> > 2) In the current spec, a topic is the same as a feed URL from the >> >> >> > publisher. But could the hub aggregate and / or segregate content >> >> >> > from incoming feed data and create its own topics? >> >> >> >> >> For my part, I would see that as a natural extension. How would >> such >> >> >> topics be created and managed? >> >> >> >> >> alexis >> >> >> >> >> > (For example, in item 2, our hub would aggregate press releases >> and >> >> >> > the segregate them based on industry / language / geography into >> >> >> > multiple topics that users can subscribe to). >> >> >> >> >> > 3) Separately, we're also interested in being able to filter by >> tagged >> >> >> > field values to create filtered feeds. >> >> >> >> >> > -Danny >> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 29, 7:44 pm, Brett Slatkin <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Alexis Richardson < >> >> >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:31 AM, Brett Slatkin < >> [email protected]> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Alexis Richardson >> >> >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >>> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:09 PM, Bob Wyman <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >>>> Now that we've got substantial experience with topic-based >> >> >> PubSubHubbub, >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> With all due respect - I don't think we have enough yet. The >> spec >> >> >> is >> >> >> >> >>> still unstable. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Specific wording aside, Alexis, it's a fine time to be talking >> about >> >> >> >> >> these ideas, right? >> >> >> >> >> >> > I don't wish to diss Bob's push in this direction. But I'd >> like to >> >> >> >> > see the topic model 'settle down' before looking at content. I >> don't >> >> >> >> > believe we are there yet. >> >> >> >> >> >> Gotcha. That's fine. I think everyone wants things to move >> slowly. >> >> >> >> This is the first I've seen of Bob's ideas in this direction and >> I've >> >> >> >> got to let it marinate in my brain a bit. But I'd imagine some >> new >> >> >> >> concerns about the existing spec may fall out of it, which is >> probably >> >> >> >> a good thing, even if we all collectively decide that they should >> or >> >> >> >> should not be in scope. >> >> >> >> >> >> -Brett >> > >
