Comments on: How to argue the case for webhooks http://blog.webhooks.org/2009/12/22/how-to-argue-for-webhooks/ User-defined HTTP callbacks for push, pipes and plugins Tue, 04 May 2010 19:35:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Jesus http://blog.webhooks.org/2009/12/22/how-to-argue-for-webhooks/#comment-230 Jesus Thu, 15 Apr 2010 22:49:13 +0000 http://blog.webhooks.org/?p=202#comment-230 Hi, this is Jesus. Shut up Otto. Peace a love Hi, this is Jesus.

Shut up Otto.

Peace a love

]]> By: Jeff Lindsay http://blog.webhooks.org/2009/12/22/how-to-argue-for-webhooks/#comment-229 Jeff Lindsay Thu, 15 Apr 2010 22:37:30 +0000 http://blog.webhooks.org/?p=202#comment-229 There is no spec. Some specs have come out of it like PubSubHubbub. There are common patterns and tools. Obviously I disagree that it doesn't deserve a name. It *is* as simple as you think. If you don't think that's a big deal... ignore what's going on here. Obviously I do. Go through my talks to find out why ... or not. Whatever. There is no spec. Some specs have come out of it like PubSubHubbub. There are common patterns and tools. Obviously I disagree that it doesn’t deserve a name. It *is* as simple as you think. If you don’t think that’s a big deal… ignore what’s going on here. Obviously I do. Go through my talks to find out why … or not. Whatever.

]]> By: Otto http://blog.webhooks.org/2009/12/22/how-to-argue-for-webhooks/#comment-228 Otto Thu, 15 Apr 2010 21:33:24 +0000 http://blog.webhooks.org/?p=202#comment-228 Which doesn't tell me one darned thing about implementation. I'm a programmer. I need to see example code. Without example code, I have no idea what you're talking about. Basically, you're talking about doing HTTP POSTS on events. Great, but that's not revolutionary enough of an idea to have a name like "webhooks", IMO. Where's the protocol? Where's the implementation? Where's the spec? In short, where's the meat in this sandwich? :) Which doesn’t tell me one darned thing about implementation.

I’m a programmer. I need to see example code. Without example code, I have no idea what you’re talking about.

Basically, you’re talking about doing HTTP POSTS on events. Great, but that’s not revolutionary enough of an idea to have a name like “webhooks”, IMO. Where’s the protocol? Where’s the implementation? Where’s the spec?

In short, where’s the meat in this sandwich?

:)

]]> By: Jeff Lindsay http://blog.webhooks.org/2009/12/22/how-to-argue-for-webhooks/#comment-227 Jeff Lindsay Thu, 15 Apr 2010 18:28:35 +0000 http://blog.webhooks.org/?p=202#comment-227 I have been explaining it. Quite concisely in some cases. Apparently it's "so simple it's stupid." You might just be missing something. I don't think an actual code example helps... a toy code example sort of works. Try this: http://www.slideshare.net/progrium/sxsw-evented-web ... Skip to slide 15 and click through. Seriously, I've been trying to simplify this for 4 years. Sometimes it's hard when you're that entrenched. But apparently it works well enough. Google, Wordpress, GitHub, Pivotal, and many many others (see slide 42 for a sampling) have figured it out from my poor attempts at explaining. I have been explaining it. Quite concisely in some cases. Apparently it’s “so simple it’s stupid.” You might just be missing something. I don’t think an actual code example helps… a toy code example sort of works. Try this: http://www.slideshare.net/progrium/sxsw-evented-web … Skip to slide 15 and click through.

Seriously, I’ve been trying to simplify this for 4 years. Sometimes it’s hard when you’re that entrenched. But apparently it works well enough. Google, WordPress, GitHub, Pivotal, and many many others (see slide 42 for a sampling) have figured it out from my poor attempts at explaining.

]]> By: Otto http://blog.webhooks.org/2009/12/22/how-to-argue-for-webhooks/#comment-226 Otto Thu, 15 Apr 2010 13:49:36 +0000 http://blog.webhooks.org/?p=202#comment-226 I've gone through this entire blog and did not find one lien of code or one example. No, I didn't watch your video or viewing your slides. I'm very busy and don't want to sit here and watch something over a long period of time. If you can't be bothered to even to attempt to explain what the heck this stuff is about in a short and concise manner, then how do you ever expect people to get it? Show me the code. One example would probably be enough. Just one. I’ve gone through this entire blog and did not find one lien of code or one example.

No, I didn’t watch your video or viewing your slides. I’m very busy and don’t want to sit here and watch something over a long period of time.

If you can’t be bothered to even to attempt to explain what the heck this stuff is about in a short and concise manner, then how do you ever expect people to get it?

Show me the code. One example would probably be enough. Just one.

]]> By: DJ http://blog.webhooks.org/2009/12/22/how-to-argue-for-webhooks/#comment-219 DJ Sun, 28 Feb 2010 21:23:29 +0000 http://blog.webhooks.org/?p=202#comment-219 I was 'push'ing HTTP at a presentation last weekend to various SAP hackers at a great SAP tech unconference - SAP Inside Track, Bonn (http://wiki.sdn.sap.com/wiki/display/events/SAP+Inside+Track+Bonn+2010). Open standards and protocols are still relatively new to the techies in the SAP world, but I'm happy that everyone grokked it. Funnily enough, one of my (rather terse) slides reflected something you said above: "HTTP is everywhere". http://www.pipetree.com/~dj/2010/02/SapInsideTrackBonn/pubsub-wehbooks-sap/slides.html Kind regards DJ I was ‘push’ing HTTP at a presentation last weekend to various SAP hackers at a great SAP tech unconference – SAP Inside Track, Bonn (http://wiki.sdn.sap.com/wiki/display/events/SAP+Inside+Track+Bonn+2010). Open standards and protocols are still relatively new to the techies in the SAP world, but I’m happy that everyone grokked it.

Funnily enough, one of my (rather terse) slides reflected something you said above: “HTTP is everywhere”.

http://www.pipetree.com/~dj/2010/02/SapInsideTrackBonn/pubsub-wehbooks-sap/slides.html

Kind regards
DJ

]]> By: Jeff Lindsay http://blog.webhooks.org/2009/12/22/how-to-argue-for-webhooks/#comment-216 Jeff Lindsay Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:33:26 +0000 http://blog.webhooks.org/?p=202#comment-216 I think your point is theory vs practice. I argue HTTP is RPC because of CGI, which is not part of HTTP as a protocol. I would rather explain webhooks as RPC just because it's easier and probably just as effective. Like REST, I think proper semantics will come back in once it's more widespread. Anyway, I'm open to learning more about how we can do that. I just don't have the time. I'm all for ideal theories, but they have to be iterated towards over time to be aligned with practicality. So I imagine over time, I'll find time to think about this more. I think your point is theory vs practice. I argue HTTP is RPC because of CGI, which is not part of HTTP as a protocol.

I would rather explain webhooks as RPC just because it’s easier and probably just as effective. Like REST, I think proper semantics will come back in once it’s more widespread.

Anyway, I’m open to learning more about how we can do that. I just don’t have the time. I’m all for ideal theories, but they have to be iterated towards over time to be aligned with practicality. So I imagine over time, I’ll find time to think about this more.

]]> By: Mike http://blog.webhooks.org/2009/12/22/how-to-argue-for-webhooks/#comment-215 Mike Wed, 13 Jan 2010 15:07:05 +0000 http://blog.webhooks.org/?p=202#comment-215 HTTP isn't RPC it's a state transfer protocol - there is value in drawing that distinction, it's in the dissertation. I like web hooks, and it's possible to explain them by means of state transfer, rather than remote procedure calls. I think a good way to look at webhooks is through the layered constraint of REST - or simply as a way of moving HTTP towards a p2p model by bending the client in the client/server constraint to include servers themselves. Roy actually mentioned this briefly during a talk in 2007. HTTP isn’t RPC it’s a state transfer protocol – there is value in drawing that distinction, it’s in the dissertation.

I like web hooks, and it’s possible to explain them by means of state transfer, rather than remote procedure calls.

I think a good way to look at webhooks is through the layered constraint of REST – or simply as a way of moving HTTP towards a p2p model by bending the client in the client/server constraint to include servers themselves. Roy actually mentioned this briefly during a talk in 2007.

]]>