Well ... the RESTAPI page is about both apis (API and API2), which is causing a lot of confusion. I think we should just get rid of the page entirely, or indicate that it was a design discussion and is not valid documentation for either API. I'd be for deleting it, personally. Obviously it causes a lot of confusion :-)
Ethan On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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". > > Sounds good to me! Thanks for clarifying :-) > > Just to make sure I get this right... > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ESME/API+2.0+-+Design > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ESME/RESTAPI > These two wiki pages are talking about the same API right? > > Can I remove the column "Current (RPC)" on this page? > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ESME/RESTAPI > I think it is better if we use the page to document the API instead of > comparing the two. > > /Anne > > > On 16. jan. 2011, at 13.18, Ethan Jewett wrote: > >> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > >
