Jeff, do you think you could help getting the folks at GitHub, Twilio, FreshBooks, Pusher to come in here and participate? What would they love to see in and out of PubSubHubbub so that it fits their needs?
Bob, that's an interesting point. You said you wanted PSHB to be about entries rather than feeds. I'm not sure I understand this. I guess you would still need to subscribe to an endpoint that would emit a collection of entries, right? Julien On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:16 AM, Bob Wyman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Julien <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > PubSubHubbub is currently too > > much oriented toward data feeds > Personally, I think that PSHB "went wrong" when folk insisted that it > support RSS instead of just Atom. In the Atom format we had gone to great > trouble to ensure that "entry" was a top-level item and that entries had > the same semantics whether they were inside feeds or on their own. (Not the > case with RSS.) One of the reasons that I worked to make this the case was > that I've been wanting to do pubsub with arbitrary content for many > years... The idea was that an Atom entry is a reasonable wrapper or > container for just about any content you might want to publish. (MIME types > distinguish the content type.) Thus, a system for syndicating Atom entries > could be used to reasonably syndicate just about anything. But, when > support for RSS feeds came into the PSHB spec, all sorts of things got > confused... PSHB should have been about the entries, not the feeds... > > bob wyman > > > > On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Julien <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Jeff, thanks for sharing so quickly :) >> I perfectly agree and acknowledge that PubSubHubbub is currently too >> much oriented toward data feeds, and content in general, while it's >> just a sub-case. >> I also think the "realtime" aspect of things doesn't matter that much, >> and is just a consequence of the "push" design. When you trigger >> events, there is no reason to do it later than sooner. >> >> The spec should evolve in something that works as well for events than >> for content. >> It should be "subscribe to a web resource, get events". [this can be >> decorated in any way people want to work with feeds, with publisher/ >> hubs merged or distinct, with no data... etc.] >> >> Julien >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Nov 28, 11:21 pm, Jeff Lindsay <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Julien Genestoux < >> > >> > [email protected]> wrote: >> > > Jeff, please do share your feelings. Help us make PubSubHubbub better! >> > > Bob, obviously pubsubhubub should be less about blogging and/or news. >> I >> > > started a thread about supporting any kind of arbitrary data, and >> this is >> > > what I had in mind as a way to suppoty any kind of content, and any >> type of >> > > updates (with our without payload). >> > >> > To this point, my main feeling is that, yes, PSHB is focused too much on >> > content. While I think this is useful (as its been the primary use >> case), >> > it's not a wide enough net to really have critical mass as a project. I >> > originally thought it was good that it was very focused and didn't solve >> > *my* particular problems. I also thought it was good it focused on a >> > tangible goal of making feeds more realtime. However, I think time has >> > shown it was not enough to be a big enough deal to sustain momentum as a >> > project. >> > >> > The problem is that this general problem PSHB solves has many different >> > views/perspectives/languages. For example, it can be message oriented >> and >> > talk about pubsub. Or it can be event oriented and talk about events etc >> > (the perspective used by Phil and them). Or it can even be thought of as >> > callbacks or hooks (webhooks). There are other similar concepts with >> > different language as well: updates/notifications, observers, etc. The >> two >> > main ones seem to be events vs messages/pubsub, and I'm not sure which >> one >> > is generally consider more general than the other. Ultimately, >> technically, >> > they're more or less the same thing, but I think the framing makes a >> *big* >> > difference. >> > >> > Anyway, that's the start of my ideas around this. >> > >> > -jeff >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > Julien >> > >> > > On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 9:33 PM, Bob Wyman <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> The sitehttp://www.mostlybaked.com/provides a number of quick >> sketches >> > >> of applications that are things that I personally think should work >> well >> > >> over PSHB if the focus of PSHB became less about blogging and more >> about >> > >> the general case of publishing and subscribing to streams of data on >> the >> > >> Internet. Also, Phil often talks about the kinds of things that he'd >> like >> > >> to do with the EventedAPI on his blog. ex: >> > >> >> http://www.windley.com/archives/2011/11/personal_event_networks_and_v... >> > >> > >> bob wyman >> > >> > >> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Bob Wyman <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >>> See:http://www.eventedapi.org/spec >> > >> > >>> As we consider what can be done to move PubSubHubbub forward, it >> might >> > >>> make sense to take a look at some other protocols that folk have >> defined to >> > >>> determine if there is anything in them that PubSubHubbub should be >> > >>> implemented or if they do things better that PSHB does. The folk at >> Kynetx ( >> > >>>http://apps.kynetx.com/) have been building up a PSHB-like system >> for >> > >>> some time now... I'm not sure I understand why PSHB wouldn't, in >> fact, >> > >>> serve their needs. >> > >> > >>> bob wyman >> > >> > -- >> > Jeff Lindsayhttp://progrium.com >> > >
