David Lyon wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 00:07:27 +0100, "Martin v. Löwis" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Thanks. Now I would need two things: >> 1. a public statement by somebody that this is the protocol they would >> actually want to use. I still don't see the need for mirroring, so >> I would provide it independent of mirroring. > > There are consumers for this sure. > > Linux package maintainers, custom python distributions etc.
Which one specifically? >> 2. a recommendation what specific hub to use. I would prefer not to run >> my own, let alone implementing a hub as part of PyPI (although >> contributions are welcome). > > Jabberd as an example is not overly complex to setup or administer. Hmm. AFAICT, jabberd does not support pubsubhubbub. > > You can control access with username/password pairs. Or allow self > registration. See, this is precisely the kind of stuff I don't have *any* cycles for. I don't want to run another service, and worry about people using it to break into python.org. >> I would then probably setup an RSS feed of the last hour of changes, >> and arrange to ping the hub. > > RSS are always open HTTP connections. Sorry, but that's how pubsubhubbhub works. > Perphaps you could accomplish everything that you want with > RSS. I didn't propose RSS. Robert Kern did, by proposing to use pubsubhubbub (although the specification seems to favor ATOM). > The "community" would be more impressed with a jabberd style > implementation as it can enable two-way communication. The "community" just proposed the contrary (more precisely, three different people proposing three different technologies). Please don't speak for anybody but yourself (unless you are *certain* that you have been authorized to do so). Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ Catalog-SIG mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
