API vs REST/CONTENT API? If we end up exposing rest API via the same entry point, no reason of even calling it anything else. If we have a separate entry point (why?), we could call it REST API or CONTENT API, specifying that it is mostly for the rendered content as opposed to internal database data. On Aug 6, 2014 1:04 PM, "Petr Bena" <[email protected]> wrote:
> The Chosen One's API. In short: Tchopi :P > > Do we really need to call it somehow? When you will say "api" 99% of > people who know mediawiki a bit will go for api.php. Special naming > should be used just for the other weird api's that nobody is ever > going to use anyway. > > Btw, why do we need to have them in secondary php files / entry points? > > On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Tyler Romeo <[email protected]> wrote: > > Definitely agree with this. It’s the only API that is part of core, so > “MediaWiki API” makes sense. > > -- > > Tyler Romeo > > 0x405D34A7C86B42DF > > > > From: Bartosz Dziewoński <[email protected]> > > Reply: Wikimedia developers <[email protected]>> > > Date: August 6, 2014 at 9:52:34 > > To: Wikimedia developers <[email protected]>> > > Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Bikeshedding a good name for "the api.php API" > > > > How about just "the MediaWiki API"? That's the only proper external API > > core MediaWiki has, as far as I'm aware. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikitech-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
