I was planning on adding a JSON based API to Tracks at some point, so if you get to it before me, then that's fine by me :-)
Thanks -- Matt On Jun 11, 2012 10:07 AM, "Devin Weaver" <[email protected]> wrote: > Tracks has an API, That is good. It is a RESTful API, that is better. The > way I understand the current implementation is that the client requests a > list from the API. It then receives the entire list. Basically no different > then the index page but with XML instead. > > This makes things quite versatile. However it also means that subsequent > requests will get the entire dump all over again. A solution would be to > allow a list of ID's to be posted to such a request and the server would > only return items that had changed, added, or deleted. Saving space on the > transfer of information. > > I ask this because I was in the planning stage for an application that > will use the API to interact with Tracks. It will store a copy of the items > (pulled through the XML requests) as to allow a user to work on the items > offline and the "sync" back to the server. The only way I see this > happening is to add that functionality to the server code. > > I'm asking whether the development community would be interested in such > features. In other words If I fork and pull-request my additions to the API > specs is the community interested OR does this go against the design > principles for Tracks? > > (My app wold be written in JavaScript so I was planning to add json APIs > to this). > > -- > "Doing something is not enough. Doing it right is what we want" - Michael > Munger > > > _______________________________________________ > Tracks-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.rousette.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/tracks-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ Tracks-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rousette.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/tracks-discuss
