Just so I'm clear, my suggestion on PubSubHubbub isn't meant to be a complaint. I'm hoping it at least starts a worthy and constructive discussion on standards-based real time distribution. I'm hoping I'm being constructive here - I'd like to see Twitter survive the next DDoS, and I'd also like to see it much easier for developers to embrace Twitter as a "utility" or "the pulse of the internet" (as TechCrunch puts it). For that to happen, basing on open standards (or opening your own for other groups to embrace in their own environments) is the only way that will happen. There are already great ways of doing this, so why re-invent the wheel when you could be contributing to a great cause that already exists?
Jesse On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Nick Arnett <nick.arn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Jesse Stay <jesses...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I know Twitter has bigger priorities, so if you can put this on your "to >> think about" list for after the DDoS problems are taken care of, I'd >> appreciate it. Perhaps this question is for John since it has to do with >> real-time. Anyway, is there any plan to support the PubSubHubbub protocol >> with Twitter's RSS feeds for users? I think that could be a great >> alternative to Twitter real-time that's standards compliant and open. It >> would also make things really easy for me for a project I'm working on. >> Here's the standard in case anyone needs a refresher: >> >> http://code.google.com/p/pubsubhubbub/ >> >> You guys would rule if you supported this. It would probably take a bit >> less strain on what you're doing now as well for real-time feeds. It could >> also reduce repeated polling on RSS. >> > > Couldn't app developers do this on their own, by allowing the user to > configure "Also publish to pubsubhubhub server" in the app? There's a > potential revenue stream there for developers - charge a small fee for this > use of the server. That would make the system even more robust, since their > would still be a publishing path even if Twitter were completely down. > > Seems to me that there are good reasons for both to exist... and I don't > see why Twitter needs to take the lead on this. Current Twitter apps are > sort of like email clients that can only talk to one brand of mail server. > > To put this another way, I think app developers need to start thinking of > it the way they really are using it - as infrastructure. Complaining about > the current problem is a bit like a mechanic complaining that an auto parts > store doesn't have a particular part when there are ten other stores that > have it in stock. > > Nick >
