On 1 February 2013 12:25, Nick Jennings <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Melvin Carvalho
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On 31 January 2013 19:31, Nick Jennings <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Melvin Carvalho
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Why limit this to activity streams over JSON?  Surely the system
> should
> >> > be
> >> > independent of the serialization for a true polyglot approach.
>
> Just for clarification, the polyglot approach does not mean the
> internal developer API needs to also be polyglot. That would be like
> saying a person who speaks multiple languages (a polyglot) must also
> think in any language they speak, or not have a native language that
> is their choice for communicating when they can dictate the language.
>
> The value the Sockethub brings is enabling developers to communicate
> with various APIs around the web without having to write specific
> implementations themselves for each platform they wish to support. You
> tell Sockethub your intentions (using a defined API) and Sockethub
> will carry out the task speaking the API language(s) needed.
>

Sure


>
>
> > What will the API look like?
> >
> > [ Identifier A ] sends message to [ Identifier B ]
> >
>
> The API is being fleshed out and is subject to change, the living
> draft is in the link I provided in the original post:
> https://raw.github.com/sockethub/sockethub/master/doc/api_protocol.txt
>

This looks like a good start.


>
>
> > Even tho the web has been around for 2 decades, we are nowhere close to
> even
> > solving the simple use case.  There are many competing protocols that
> have
> > balkanized the social web.  I'm interested to see the approach that will
> be
> > taken here.  Also dont forget that the web was designed to be social from
> > the start, and almost everything talks HTTP these days.  To date, only
> > facebook have really leveraged this, we really need something we designed
> > under FLOSS in this space!
>
> Sockethub is not trying to create "yet another protocol" or solution
> that requires a critical mass adoption before it achieves it's
> potential, but rather mitigate the effect that these competing
> protocols have on the users, and developers.  One person can use
> Sockethub to it's full potential. I think that's a huge plus for the
> project, it's not trying to take on too much, just solve an important
> - specific - problem, and do it well. It can then be used as a
> building block for multiple use-cases, and approaches, to the bigger
> issues at hand.
>

Well it is 'yet another protocol' in terms of stitching together other apis
and providing your own.

Scalability is the challenge where most projects stumble.

http://xkcd.com/927/

See above :)  Good luck!


>
> Cheers
> Nick
>

Reply via email to