Standard Webhooks: open-source tools and guidelines for sending webhooks
1–10 of 33 posts
Re: Standard Webhooks: open-source tools and guidelines for sending webhooks
#2> While this specification does not dictate the structure, or impose any requirements, on the shape, format, and content of the payload it does offer recommendations
Too loose to be a standard but better than nothing.
Re: Standard Webhooks: open-source tools and guidelines for sending webhooks
#3I wondered, "whose standard?", and was pleasantly surprised to find a list of real names [1] on the website. Nonetheless, I do bristle at the semantic weight of the name despite the fact it's not attached to a relevant existing institution.
Re: Standard Webhooks: open-source tools and guidelines for sending webhooks
#4This is useful. I've been part of a team implementing webhooks in the past and there are a lot of difficult details you need to get right - things like responsible retries, authentication, thin-vs-fat hooks and server-side request forgery.
This document covered all of them. Here's the SSRF bit for example: https://github.com/standard-webhooks/standard-webhooks/blob/...
Re: Standard Webhooks: open-source tools and guidelines for sending webhooks
#5> While this specification does not dictate the structure, or impose any requirements, on the shape, format, and content of the payload it does offer recommendations Too loose to be a standard but better than nothing.
Yeah, we don't call it a standard for that reason, here's the tagline:
> Open source tools and guidelines for sending webhooks easily, securely and reliably
We have been going back and forth about this. Though we purposefully made Standard Webhooks more like guidelines than a formal specification (note there's no mention of RFC2119, for example) so that it's easier to conform to without forcing implementations to have breaking changes. Even if it means you don't get the full benefits.
I think people can get a lot of benefits even if they don't follow the whole thing, and it's our job to continue building tools to make it easier to build conforming implementations than non-conforming ones.
Re: Standard Webhooks: open-source tools and guidelines for sending webhooks
#6webhooks were a phase we should have passed by now, not try to entrench with some standard. it’s a broken/obscure implementation of full duplex communications between two systems but thought up as if it were a luxury, auxiliary system whose downtime we should be able to tolerate. if we’re required to survive downtime of a webhook system, i think we’re right to ask: why are they there in the first place?
Re: Standard Webhooks: open-source tools and guidelines for sending webhooks
#7webhooks were a phase we should have passed by now, not try to entrench with some standard. it’s a broken/obscure implementation of full duplex communications between two systems but thought up as if it were a luxury, auxiliary system whose downtime we should be able to tolerate. if we’re required to survive downtime of a webhook system, i think we’re right to ask: why are they there in the first place?
What should replace them?
Re: Standard Webhooks: open-source tools and guidelines for sending webhooks
#8Looks great.
What are people using to store and send retries?
Re: Standard Webhooks: open-source tools and guidelines for sending webhooks
#9This is also a really good summary of "what to think about while implementing webhooks" -- personally I wish we had thought of doing "thin" webhooks in an implementation I was a part of.
Re: Standard Webhooks: open-source tools and guidelines for sending webhooks
#10Looks great. What are people using to store and send retries?
Plain ol’ sql