esme-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ethan Jewett <esjew...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: pubsubhubbub
Date Fri, 21 May 2010 19:23:18 GMT
We would be a subscriber, though we could conceivably set up actions or
something else that acts as a publisher as well. It's one of the options for
really stream-ifying the API.

This would only affect RSS/Atom actions. The way those actions currently
work is that they poll an RSS feed when they are triggered. We almost always
set them up to run regularly using an "every 5 mins" test, for example.
PubSubHubbub gets rid of the need to poll at all, since the hub will
automatically notify the ESME instance every time the feed is updated.

This would kind of change the semantics of the RSS/Atom actions from being
an action to being more of a test, actually. Interesting. Not sure if this
is what we want. Does anyone use RSS/Atom actions with a test other than
"every X mins"?

Ethan

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Richard Hirsch <hirsch.dick@gmail.com>wrote:

> Sounds way cool - so if I understand PSHB  correctly - we would then be a
> subscriber as well as a publisher?  Why I don't completely understand is
> the
> connection to actions? Would there be a PHSB action that sends messages to
> a
> hub?
>
> D.
>
> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Ethan Jewett <esjewett@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Not very far, but enough to build on, and I plan to keep going once I'm
> on
> > my sabbatical (starting in 1 week!!). There is a branch in the svn
> > repository that has all my progress in it.
> >
> > The basic approach was in to parts:
> >
> > 1. Add an indicator to the action that the feed is PSHB-enabled
> (determined
> > by analyzing the feed when the action is polled), and in this case we
> would
> > never start the poller. Instead we would initiate a subscription.
> >
> > 2. The second half was to add a PSHB handler that could receive callbacks
> > from hubs related to specific actions and post messages based on these
> > callbacks.
> >
> > I think I got about 1/3 done with each of these tasks :-)
> >
> > An additional nice-to-have would be to implement use of the optional
> > signing
> > scheme for hubs that support it, though this is not necessary to reach
> our
> > current level of security.
> >
> > Ethan
> >
> > On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Richard Hirsch <hirsch.dick@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > @Ethan: Out of curiosity, how far did you get on your pubsubhubbub
> > > implementation?
> > >
> > > D.
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message