I think that "api" and "restapi" are the same thing, aren't they? API2 is both more RESTful than the original (for whatever that is worth) and includes streaming functionality for a few endpoints with a Jira ticket in the backlog to implement streaming for more endpoints. It is not really accurate to call it a "streaming" API because it is a full API for the application that includes streaming functionality where appropriate.
The https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ESME/RESTAPI page is actually a copy of the original API page https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ESME/Google+Code+API with further discussion of how to convert it to a more RESTful format. This eventually became the "API2" Confusing enough? ;-) Here is my proposal: We keep the original API but we don't do work on it aside from security fixes. We add additional functionality to the API2 and the Twitter API going forward. We indicate that new clients should be developed using the API2. I should be able to support requests for new functionality in the API2 from client developers who are making use of it. I suggest we call them something like "API (deprecated)", "API2 (current)", and "Twitter-compatible API". I think this actually tracks quite well with what we are already doing. How does that sound? Ethan On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe <[email protected]> wrote: > Moved on to the API page: http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ESME/API > > We now have four APIs: > api - original REST-like API > api2 - streaming API > restapi - rest API > twitterapi - twitter API > > or actually 5, we also have the jmx, but that's for a very specific use case.. > > I think we should simplify our APIs or at least it would be great if we > could, because this scenario is very confusing for new users to Apache ESME. > It is confusing even to me actually... > > What are the current status on the different APIs? > Do we have any current clients which uses the original API? > > /Anne > > > > > > >
