Phil I'd love to hear what you think of RabbitHub. The design is very similar to yours.
alexis On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Phil Windley <[email protected]> wrote: > I think those words are unfortunate and should be changed. > This blog post is perhaps a clearer description of how I see the > relationship between PuSH and Evented APIs. > http://www.windley.com/archives/2011/12/apis_that_call_you.shtml > Something that doesn't come through in the spec doc very clearly (and > needs to be updated) is the idea that Evented APIs are almost always > one-to-one, meaning that the event is being raised on behalf of an > entity. Think of connecting your account at Fitbit with your account > at Withings. I want Withings to know when there's new Fitbit data. > --phil-- > Phillip J. Windley, Ph.D.www.windley.comwww.kynetx.com=windley > > On Dec 12, 5:19 pm, Ka-Ping Yee <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Sam and Phillip, >> >> I'm curious about the Evented APIs spec and am trying to understand what >> motivated it. I noticed this answer to the FAQ about PubSubHubbub, but it >> didn't really help: >> >> The complexity of using a distribution hub doesn’t make sense for anything >> but large systems. PuSH was a way to reduce polling on the origin server, >> but it’s really a stop-gap for better evented systems. >> >> "PuSH is just a stop-gap" seems like a content-free answer. I imagine you >> must have had more detailed reasons in mind; would you mind elaborating a >> bit on what you mean by "stop-gap" and "better"? >> >> Thanks, >> >> —Ka-Ping Yee
