BitWorking

WebHooks

Google Project Hosting just announced support for Web Hooks, which is the first time I've heard of them. Web Hooks, that is. Looks very interesting. You would think my first reaction would be "that would be so much better with Atom" since you could POST an Atom Entry, but it wasn't.

I'm not 100% in agreement with Tim, but I'm a lot closer than I was a few years ago.

The current weakness with Web Hooks is that it's just an idea, with a general description of what to do. Personally I'd prefer a little more rigorous text around such a thing. That might avoid the need for headers with names like Google-Code-Project-Hosting-Hook-Hmac:.

Just wondering -- is your being closer to Tim Bray regarding the need for all 4 http verbs vs. just GET/POST, or regarding x-www-form-urlencoded as a good alternative to something like Atom?

Posted by Peter Keane on 2009-02-04

Pete,

On a simpler alternative to an Atom body.

Posted by Joe on 2009-02-04

I actually rather like the idea of webhooks. They're a pragmatic solution to dealing with events in webapps. That being said, standardizing them a bit might make it a lot easier for people to hook their stuff up...

Posted by Adam Sanderson on 2009-02-04

"On a simpler alternative to an Atom body."

Agree. I need this for events. Content is a done deal.

Posted by Bill de hÓra on 2009-02-04

2009-02-03