6 ms·
Webhooks are in need of some standardisation for sure, so moving towards something like PuSH is a step in the right direction. However this technology has been
by brissmyr 13y ago
Webhooks are in need of some standardisation for sure, so moving towards something like PuSH is a step in the right direction. However this technology has been around for a while, so whether this will become standard or not remains unclear.
PuSH solves a couple annoyances with webhooks that comes to my mind:
- Lack of debuggability: the inability to subscribe to events forces me to explicitly set up callback URL(s) on service providers' dashboards or in query strings in requests. IF I managed to set them up correctly, data will come crashing in any day in the future, throwing exceptions, or bouncing on unspecified routes. And all these POST catchers and local tunnels developers play with to get this right in the first place.
- Ad-hoc verification schemes: Every service comes up with their own way of ensuring the data originated from their servers. Signature hashes as 'X-*'-headers, a number of extra fields inside the JSON body, etc.
There are more, but these two has annoyed me for quite some time.
- johns 13y agoWe've (Runscope) tried to make debugging better than what you can do with a simple post catcher like requestb.in. The nice thing about our forwarding setup is that if a webhook fails on your server you have a log of that and can retry it.
- brissmyr 13y agoYeah, I saw your service on Heroku a couple of weeks ago. Haven't tried it for our API's yet but I recall you had a pretty nifty approach. Good work!