optionality of websockets?

XMLWordPrintableJSON

    • Type: Question
    • Resolution: Considered - Question answered
    • Priority: Highest
    • FHIRCast (FHIR)
    • 0.1 [deprecated]
    • Imaging Integration
    • (NA)
    • Event Notification
    • Hide

      II voted to approve Block-Vote-4 on November 10, 2020 - Isaac Vetter:Eric Martin: 16-0-2

      Specification has been modified to make websockets the preferred communication channel.

      • Subscriber SHALL support rest-hooks or websockets
      • Hub SHALL support websockets and SHOULD support rest-hooks
      • Hub shall declare it's potential rest-hooks capability in a machien readable way to the subscribing app during launch.

      Great question!

      Show
      II voted to approve Block-Vote-4 on November 10, 2020 - Isaac Vetter:Eric Martin: 16-0-2 Specification has been modified to make websockets the preferred communication channel. Subscriber SHALL support rest-hooks or websockets Hub SHALL support websockets and SHOULD support rest-hooks Hub shall declare it's potential rest-hooks capability in a machien readable way to the subscribing app during launch. Great question!

      Websockets does everything webhooks does. Should we remove webhooks? Or perhaps make websockets a requirement for hubs?

      Existing Wording:

      Implementer feedback is solicited around the preference and desired optionality of webhooks and websockets.

            Assignee:
            Unassigned
            Reporter:
            Isaac Vetter
            Watchers:
            3 Start watching this issue

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: