[HN Gopher] Standard Webhooks: open-source tools and guidelines ...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Standard Webhooks: open-source tools and guidelines for sending
       webhooks
        
       Author : yurisagalov
       Score  : 53 points
       Date   : 2023-12-07 17:24 UTC (5 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (github.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
        
       | pyrolistical wrote:
       | > 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.
        
         | tasn wrote:
         | 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.
        
       | dwb wrote:
       | I 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.
       | 
       | [1]: https://www.standardwebhooks.com/#committee
        
       | simonw wrote:
       | This 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/...
        
       | yawboakye wrote:
       | webhooks 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?
        
         | Cyphase wrote:
         | What should replace them?
        
       | stephen123 wrote:
       | Looks great.
       | 
       | What are people using to store and send retries?
        
       | ultrasaurus wrote:
       | This 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.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-12-07 23:00 UTC)