Jeff Lindsay, who coined the term 'webhook', said that the difference between webhook and http callback is that webhooks are user-defined. I think I understand what he meant, but I was thinking about it and I asked myself, can webhooks be effectively used by regular users (I mean: non-developers)?
Usually people don't have a clue how the internet works, they don't know what http is, terms like URL, callback, or request-response don't say anything to them. I've heard that many people do not know the difference between a web browser and a web site, they think that internet really starts at google.com and they type in all urls in the google search box... I mean, what's the use of webhooks when you're not a developer?
Do you think services like AlertGrid make sense? It's a webhook consumer that you can configure to dispatch alerts (SMS, phone, email) either when the callback is NOT received in x amount of time, or when the received data meets user-defined condition, plus it does some data visualization. We wanted it to make webhooks usable for non-developers. But still it requires an initial integration by someone who at least knows how to configure the source to send the webhook events. In many cases it only takes pasting an url to a textbox, but it seems to be beyond the skills of a typical user.
So, are the webhook doomed to be used by software developers only, or is there a chance that millions of Facebook or Twitter users will start making use of them somehow?
I think that something implemented using Webhooks can be made very user friendly.
Suppose Stack Exchange allowed users to define a webhook that would be notified whenever you earned a badge. You could supply a custom URL, or there could be simple buttons to click that would set it up for your Facebook or Twitter account. It could be as simple as the Facebook Like button.
YES I think this is a great idea. It's actually something I designed in my head a couple months ago and didn't think the product existed.
Webhooks are extremely powerful and having a 'service bus' aggregate/manage/dispatch these callbacks is extremely compelling to me.
I think that we are a long way from the general public consuming webhooks in any sort of meaningful way but I don't see why not. I remember when RSS was a 'developer' only technology.
Thanks for the link. I'll be digging in more this weekend.
Related
I am doing a proof of concept to find a way to make callouts from Apex code to send automated Whatsapp messages/communications from Salesforce to our customers at difference points of time in Sales life cycle (ex: one at lead conversion, one when a payment is received etc).
My assumption here is to send these messages via triggers. Only thing is i am not able to figure out the correct approach to start with. I did see an example online which is using middleware apps like twilio, weboxapp to convey the messages to Whatsapp servers. Is there a way these communications could be sent directly? Any leads are appreciated!
There appears to be a fairly new integration set up between Salesforce and WhatsApp. There's a good write up in the first link below, and then documentation from Salesforce in the 2nd link. I'd start by looking through there because it might help solve your requirements much more easily. I believe that Whatsapp's APIs are private and need to be accessed through an approved partner.
https://www.wearemarketing.com/blog/salesforce-whatsapp-integration-release.html
https://help.salesforce.com/articleView?id=sf.messaging_set_up_whatsapp.htm&type=5
I came from a similar state in this question.
My objective is to reply to interested customers via whatsapp messages. I'll use a very special setup, so I'll be using the API.
Reasons:
With not to pay anyone other than container hosts
Solution with custom API
Customer doesn't like any extra costs
Just like user noboundaries, I see the numbers, but I cant get the certificate
User Navjot Singh has explained I need to create a "business api account"
I tried just that, put out all my contacts and stuff, in this site.
They did respond yes, but only with pointless instructions, since I wish not to contract any messaging providers. I had taken a look at it, but they charge a very expensive price beyond the $0.005 whatsapp will charge. Also, the solution I'm creating requires messages to be sent programatically, and the partners don't seem to provide the correct solution.
So, I wish to skip into using the api. I followed the appropriate guides:
Getting started
Phone Number
I already got some things done:
two phone numbers (one of them for testing) with whatsapp business;
company has been verified, with domain
have business management account
local environment with docker
I can access the local environment and I have set an user account and the admin acount. I can log into those via the API, since postman can ignore certificates, but in order to proceed I really feel like I need that certificate.
So to sim up I guess I need help creating the whatsapp business account for my customer. Any advice?
Also i'd appreciate any other helpful insight or feedback. I really feel lost and I don't see a place where I can talk to people trying to do the same thing, or doing this is much of a madness after all?
thanks for getting to read until here, and I apologize for my non natural, almost broken English.
Hi I wanted to start big in stackOverflow but I fell flat.
About the subject at hand, westerday I dwelt deep into the rabbit hole.
For most companies, you actually are forced to work with a provider, such as twllio or messagebird. They act as intermediary between the facebook business and the whatsapp business api.
Some of they offer messaging separated from whatsapp api setup I still need to take a look into it, but for those who are trying to set up whatsapp business api on their one, it seems as of november 2020 it's not possible.
please check out:
respond.io's guide
blog post from take.net PT-BR (google translate didn't like me trying to translate this to English)
This is not exactly a programming related question but it is closely related to developing so I think it is pertinent.
I´ve been charged in my work with developing an app with access to Facebook Messenger. I needed a Facebook Account and I didn´t want to use a personal one (and I don´t use Facebook anyway) so I created a new gmail account to use it to sign up in Facebook, as user and as a developer.
After a couple of days of work, having created the page, my webhook, done some tests, etc., and investing a good deal of work hours, my account appeared as disabled.
I have to admit a didn´t use much of real info on this account (I´m kind of allergic to disclosing personal information unless mandatory), and the account was new so I thought that maybe that was the reason (they don´t give you any).
So I tried again a second time with an account I had been using for years (just for logging in some sites, not much of real information there neither, as I say I don´t really use Facebook), and after a couple of days, same results, locked account.
I can´t stress enough I don´t use the API extensively, I just send some messages to another user I have added as one of the application developers so I can test (that other account is never blocked, by the way). It´s not like I am sending hundreds of messages or anything like it. And by the way, I have never been blocked while I was doing something (so I could indentify my wrongdoing). It just happened that at some point when I was going back to work (first hour in the morning, or after lunch for example) I tried to log in again and then I got the warning.
So I have tried a third time, this time I have given all my real information, reluctantly uploaded a personal picture, given all my data to Facebook (yikes!).
And after a couple of days: damn, same result. Blocked account. Work lost. They prompt you to upload a picture to check your Id, but to no avail (no answer yet, not even a notice of any kind) and they don´t give you absolutely any reason why the have blocked you.
And if I go to https://facebook.com/help/contact/260749603972907 to fill the form where they ask you to upload an ID then it says that the email doesn´t belong to a disabled account!
What is the unusual activity they have detected? What have I done wrong? Has someone experienced the same problem? Has someone got any clue of what it is that I could be doing wrong?
Because I don´t want to go through the whole process once again only to get blocked in a couple of days.
Thanks.
EDIT 1:
Ok, after checking again now it recognizes the account as a disabled one. I have gone to https://facebook.com/help/contact/260749603972907 to fill the form and I have uploaded my ID (even though I completely disagree with disclosing that kind of information).
Honestly, I don´t know what it means by "shortly". It´s been two days now and I have not received any kind of notification yet.
By the way, I haven´t received any kind of notification (mail, sms, anything) during any step of the process EVER. No one. Nothing. Not even an automatic email response. Plain absolute silence.
Honestly, if Facebook uses a security system like this, that lets hackers in while blocks legitimate users, creating false positives and making us lose many hours of work, without any reason or notification or explanation, then Facebook security is plain wrecked.
And I cannot do anything less than to strongly discourage any developer to use it if they can avoid it (what unfortunately I can´t).
EDIT 2:
After some days I regained access to my account again. Without any notification, I just tried again and now it worked (really good communication policy, Facebook, congratulations).
My App had disappeared, so I had to go through the whole process again. And after sending ONE message to the API, this again:
And once again the asked me to upload a picture of myself (I think they already have enough pictures of me to make an album).
This is just plain crazy.
Just signed up a third party email marketing provider, when I provide the template they give me a small tag to place which they subsitute with a user specific unsubscribe link.
My concern is that the link is single click, there is no subsequent confirmation, etc.. and whilst I am all for easy removal, I worry that any combination of malware scanners, AV engines, spam scanners will follow the link and thus unsubscribe many legitmate users.
Is this the norm to have a single HTTP GET request unsubscribe a user?
How are other developers handling this issue?
Note: The provider in question is critsend
Interesting question. It’s not the norm. But it’s common with cautious email service providers. For example, MailChimp also has a 1-click unsubscribe for his freemium users. I’m not a big fan of that, too. (I’d prefer a prefilled form field, where the user confirms his wish to unsubscribe by clicking "submit".) However, I didn’t witness any problems using 1-click-unsub until now.
FYI, here’s a discussion addressing a similar topic (false positive double opt-in confirmations). You might also want to check out this article and this discussion (forum registration required).
The norm is once clicked, it goes to a form which you click a button to confirm removal. That's strange there are even single clicks avaliable
Any side effect changing HTTP GET request is non-conforming as far as HTTP is concerned. In particular, see this from RFC 2616, section 9.1.1:
In particular, the convention has been established that the GET and HEAD methods SHOULD NOT have the significance of taking an action other than retrieval. These methods ought to be considered "safe". This allows user agents to represent other methods, such as POST, PUT and DELETE, in a special way, so that the user is made aware of the fact that a possibly unsafe action is being requested.
It would be more standard to put the actual unsubscribe behind a form submission to cause a POST.
I know Campaign Monitor has built in procedures to catch non-user unsubscribes. Not sure about critsend.
We want to streamline the user registration and login process. The goal is to reduce the time and effort for users to register and login to our site.
At the same time, we don't want to overwhelm users with choices. We don't like how some web sites present registration/login options via multiple channels (e.g., Facebook, Twitter).
What are the pros/cons of each of these systems? Which do you use, and what are your main gripes?
Offer all of them, don't take the time to ask "why?".
It's always worth it to get users on board.
The biggest (IMO) pro is that you are no longer storing passwords in your db. Leveraging one of those other site's authentication service relieves you of this. It doesn't relieve you of having a secure design. I'm also not sure that your average end user really cares. If your service is highly aligned with one of those services, maybe. However, if you are not targetting those end-users, then probably not.
Rob Conery did a recent write up of his experience with OpenId. This might be a good read:
http://blog.wekeroad.com/thoughts/open-id-is-a-party-that-happened
Hope this helps.
Bob
Well, yes, it does all depend on your user audience.
In any case, I would say that Facebook Connect is probably your best bet due to the sheer number of people using Facebook. Still, as far as I've noticed, it's not really "professional" websites that use Facebook Connect, mostly forums and unofficial (but popular) news blogs.
Many "professional" websites (catering to... well, professionals) will use a normal Register/Login rather than Twitter, Facebook, or OpenID. Still, a professional website would likely need a more professional solution, so I would suggest OpenID, which also supports websites such as Yahoo! Mail and developer communities (such as Stack Overflow!). You can see the full list of sites here.
In all honesty, I don't really think that using a Twitter login would be very efficient. Think of it this way: for one, I've noticed (but I could be wrong) that Twitter is mainly used by the small hobbyist or the people who use it to give updates on things they're doing or making (and sometimes just the people who want to be in on the times). So unless your website is aimed at these type of people, it wouldn't really be useful. On top of that, I don't know of many people who particularly like it, partially because of its over-popularity. Still, it could be the same way with Facebook, but this is all subjective, so if you really want to pick Twitter, go for it.
Anyway, that's my take on things. I don't personally use these systems on websites I've built, but I know how they work.
For one, when you log in using any of these for the first time, they take the user to a new page or open a popup window asking them to confirm if they want to connect their [Whatever] account to your [Website Name]. After that, it's a bit easier to use just because they don't have to keep repeating the process unless they disallow your website on their service.
With OpenID, you have to log in to your OpenID-enabled webpage using http://myusername.myopenid.com/ or myusername.myopenid.com. If they don't choose to remember their password, this can become a bit tedious to type in every time.
With Facebook Connect, it usually automatically connects all of their information to the website, including full name and profile picture (meaning that if they have a profile picture of that snazzy tattoo on their inner thigh, other users will be able to see that).
Finally, as far as I can see, Twitter doesn't do much other than connect whatever name you had on your profile page (if it's "John Doe" or "Weiner Schnitzel", it'll show on your website) and your profile picture, just like Facebook.
To finish up, those are pretty much all the pros and cons that I can tell about the services. Good luck!
What is your target group?
If you want that many normal people uses your application than use Facebook.
If there are many coder / blogger / internet junkies than use Twitter.
If you have a lot of open source guys than OpenID will do the job.
If i'm is not wrong, previously there is a website providing kinda service about providing login platform to allow user connect to your site. Of course it is not free and i was abandon it because of high annual fees and mind change after research being done.
While you using their service to growing your business or website, you can save their time it's true. but honestly, will they really care on how long time taken to connect their facebook with your website either register as a new member in your website. While you can give confidence to you client, they do. they willing to spent few minute to fill up simple information to make an account for them self if they felt they worth to spent the minute to get service from your website.
Totally agreed to what rcravens said, if they connect through third party website, means you are gonna giving you user information to that website. For example, to archive FACEBOOK CONNECT you will need to create an application for them to trust them you only can get authority to access. while they accept and login to your site, it is good for FREE advertise because while they connect, can use their account as medium to post your information to public. BUT mostly site will sell their information gather or share them in any way to some organization who need them for decision.
My point is, how many people using your site and mostly who is using, what characteristic of your site user and so on... everything is no more under your control !!!
Perhaps, you may use it but what if their service shut down few hour for maintainance...
I'd recommend using something like RPXNow (https://rpxnow.com/) or Gigya (http://www.gigya.com/) as an intermediary to the various authentication providers. Facebook and Twitter are notorious for always changing their APIs. It is a pain to keep up with them. These services give you a simple abstraction layer, so that you don't need to change anything on your end when the providers change their APIs.
i like facebook but..
facebook is block in some country.
open id is not famous.
twitter is famous and simple.
so use twitter is the best :)
Use OpenID as it is a standard that is also integrated into many Mail Accounts, like Google or Yahoo. You never know how long Facebook will stay around and therefore it's better to have something people just don't throw away (there Mail address). If you make a nice selection screen (e.g. stackoverflow), the people don't even know that they're using OpenID. If you just want to get authorized Comments, picture uploads for twitter or fb, a game connected with social features don't use it.
Facebook Connect is very usable for one time comments or stuff like this. If you want to store your own data about the user (e.g. blog service, saas), not dependend on "social networks" don't use it.
Twitter Login makes only sense if you connect your service with Twitter, otherwise forget about it.
I would use a hidden OpenID approach.
Facebook is great for keeping tabs on family and friends. Beyond that I, personally, wouldn't use it in support of any other app. It's just not bullet-proof enough from a security/malware standpoint. There is too great a chance someone could have issues of that sort with Facebook and attribute it to your site, whether reasonably so or not.
I like OpenID. Not thrilled with the notion of hitching my wagon to any of the social networking sites/services at all.
Is this a technical or commercial question?
The answer to my mind is it depends what you want to do with the data.
If you just want to provide a service to a broad list of people then the answer has to be to gun for openness, not proprietary - particularly since the open standard is supported elsewhere, Gmail, Yahoo et al.
However, if you want to demographically profile that database at some point to offer targeted services, then you need to understand the questions you're likely to require answered and whether a third party method is going to enable that or not.