[PubSub] Brussels report
stpeter at stpeter.im
Mon Apr 20 15:48:22 CDT 2009
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 2/11/09 7:58 AM, Brian Cully wrote:
> On 10-Feb-2009, at 22:22, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> 1. The "one node per namespace" rule in PEP is overly restrictive. The
>> canonical example of why we need to remove this restriction is Atom (it
>> can be used for blog posts, GeoRSS, and a dozen other things). To relax
>> this restriction, we would define well-known NodeIDs and specify that
>> the node's payload type is Atom or whatever. Existing PEP payload specs
>> (tunes, mood, etc.) might be updated to specify that there might be
>> compatibility problems if you attempt to publish that payload to a
>> NodeID that does not match the namespace (however, I don't think even
>> this is necessary because nothing will break if new NodeIDs are mapped
>> to existing payload types).
> I assume this means adding a node config option "mime_type" or
> something similar? If so, I think this is a pretty good idea and it
> simplifies things on the client end a great deal in some cases.
We have this: payload_type.
>> 4. The subscription depth stuff for collection nodes is madness and
>> needs to be removed from the spec.
> I disagree. Subscription depth makes for very simple client
> implementations for apps built heavily on PubSub. What's the objection
> here? Also, if you get rid of subscription depth, you also need to kill
> subscription type (items vs. nodes), as w/o depth it becomes useless.
> Unless I'm missing something fundamental, subscription depth strikes
> me as a pretty good idea.
I need to think about this further.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the PubSub