11 ms·

only if the order of events matters.

• fiddlerwoaroof 5y ago
  Yeah, if the events can be handled idempotently and this handling properly accounts for time, you don’t have to stop processing webhooks while filling in the gaps.
  • aboodman 5y ago
    OK but, it usually matters. If the events represent changes to some object, those changes almost always have to be handled in order if you are to arrive at the same end state as the source. edit: Also, idempotent is not the right term here. Idempotent just would mean the event could be handled by the receiver multiple times w/o changing the meaning. If you need the events to be applicable out of order, then you need them to be commutative. This is a much more difficult property to ensure and in practice, I am guessing, almost non-existent in deployed webhook APIs.
    • fiddlerwoaroof 5y ago
      I think that’s right re. idempotency. However, I think if each webhook is a statement of the state of an object at time t (using some monotonic definition of time, like a Lamport clock), commutativity is trivial: compare the time in the webhook event to the time in your local database, and only update your database if the webhook event is newer.