Jeff On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Alexis Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > Jeff > > On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Jeff Lindsay <[email protected]> wrote: >>> The objection to this boils down to the difficulty of setting up the >>> publisher-hub relationship, compared to everything that you get for >>> free with feeds. >> >> I'd like to start thinking about this again ... any pointers to >> previous discussions on this? > > IIRC these discussions were in Aug/Sep 2009.
Various examples here: http://groups.google.com/group/pubsubhubbub/search?group=pubsubhubbub&q=symmetric&qt_g=Search+this+group alexis > > >> It's also worth noting that dropping federation and considering in >> practice most people implement their own hubs as providers, this >> drastically simplifies the model. You lose the need for publisher-hub >> relationship, you better match people's models of how it should work, >> etc. > > By federation I really mean chaining, whereby the same protocol ("-->") > enables: > > P --> H --> H --> ... --> H --> S > > So, yes. You could also have P --> S. > > alexis > > >> I think previously the assumption that publisher would not want to run >> a hub because they have feeds might need to be revisited with new data >> suggesting people interested in webhooks/event APIs are willing to run >> software that would handle the responsibilities of the hub. >> >> Perhaps what comes out of this is something much less grand as the >> original vision for PSHB (federated hubs, etc), but something much >> more practical and simple (as another spec or what, I don't know). >> >> -jeff >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Daniel Chapman <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>>> Either way, there are common issues that overlap. >>>> >>>> Absolutely. Which is why I suggested that PSHB define "new push project X" >>>> as the mechanism by which it transports feeds. >>>> The main downside to that though, is that there wouldn't be a lot left to >>>> talk about with Atom and the Push in separate projects. PSHB would just >>>> become "Push project X" + "Atom Feeds". >>>> My main concern with generalizing PSHB is that then you can't rely on a >>>> rel=hub link to be a real feed hub. PSHB + Atom is a bit confusing to put >>>> on >>>> a link on your site don't you think? >>>> But if we started with a new spec for the push, then the expectation right >>>> from the start is that new PPX endpoints and pushes are arbitrary and not >>>> for blind consumption. >>>> It just feels like that expanding the spec to include anything, takes the >>>> currently nice trustable rel=hub links and makes them suddenly uncertain. I >>>> am not sure that is a good thing. >>>> A PSHB -Atom +JSON (or +whatever) appendix is possible, but just seems a >>>> bit >>>> messy. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Jeff Lindsay >> http://progrium.com >> >
