Yeah I agree and wished twitter would have just kept the design more consistent to what is already there. If they want to change the design, do it all at once and save it for another version (maybe 2 or something).
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Paul Kinlan <paul.kin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I thought this too when I first saw the new list api. Is the Twitter > team moving away from id/screenname based query parameters and simply > using screen names? > > I suppose the point being that Daniel was making is that screen name > is superflous when using authentication especially since all the POST, > PUT and DELETE commands will require authentication to work. > > It would be good to at least know which url structure Twitter intend > to support because as it stands now their is a disjoint between this > new API and the old ones. > > P > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 8 Nov 2009, at 16:49, Josh Roesslein <jroessl...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Twitter API team seems to want to make the API more "RESTful". So that >> is my guess why that >> end point is /:user/lists.xml POST versus something like /lists/ >> create.xml >> >> Josh >> >> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 2:25 AM, Dimebrain <daniel.cre...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> The current endpoint for creating a new list is: >>> http://api.twitter.com/1/user/lists.format >>> >>> But the "user" part is meant to be the user's screen name. >>> >>> If your application is oAuth, you don't necessarily know or care >>> about >>> the user's screen name. >>> >>> You can easily get it with a verify_credentials call. >>> >>> However, this is the first time that an API endpoint has required two >>> calls to be useful. Why would the user part of the URL be necessary >>> at >>> all if authentication is required? >