I am trying to think of the URIs as mapping to resources on the web, and
trying to read it out loud. Consequently, please see the reading of URIs and
some questions/suggestions interspersed below.
Thanks,
Bob
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 10:02 PM, David Primmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> We're struggling with these implementation details right now. I'd love
> to see what others have decided on.
>
> quick summary of the proposed url system (just for the people api)
>
> /people/{uid}/all -- Collection of all people connected to user
> {uid}
Sounds like: "Get people for user, {uid}; all of them."
>
> /people/{uid}/friends -- Collection of all friends of user {uid};
> subset of all
Sounds like: "Get people for user, {uid}; only those who are friends."
>
> /people/{uid}/{groupid} -- Collection of all people connected to user
> {uid} in group {groupid}
Sounds like: "Get people for user, {uid}; who are also in group_id."
That one is confusing. Won't this be the same as all people in {group id}? I
have only a vague concept of "group" here, so please correct that for me.
>
> /people/{uid}/all/{pid} -- Individual person record.
Sounds like: "Get people for user, {uid}; All of them. Only with person id,
{pid}."
Why not drop the 'all'? /people/{uid}/{pid}
Then it could sound like, "Get people for user, {uid}; with person id,
{pid}."
Sounds like: "Get people for user, {uid}, with person id {pid}."
> /people/{uid}/sel -- Self Profile record for user {uid}
Sounds like, "Get people for user, {uid}; sel."
Why not drop the 'sel' here, and /people/{uid}/ just refers to that user
resource specified by {uid}.
> /groups/{uid}/self -- Collection of groups owned by the
> user, which always contains 'all' and 'friends' and may contain more.
> (Details TBD)
>
>
Sounds like: "Get groups for user, {uid}; self."
Perhaps, predicated on the group definition, it could just be /groups/{uid}
which gets all groups that user, {uid} belongs (owns?) to.
What is group ownership? Is the group any subset of people that a user
knows?