I will move it somewhere else, I think it is good to keep as documentation, and update the main API page. Thanks a million!
/Anne On 16. jan. 2011, at 13.53, Ethan Jewett wrote: > 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >>
