On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Randy Morris <randy.mor...@archlinux.us> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 03:16:26PM -0700, elij wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 3:15 PM, elij <elij...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 3:54 AM, Loui Chang <louipc....@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue 06 Oct 2009 14:03 -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Laszlo Papp <djsz...@archlinux.us> wrote: >> >>> > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 1:40 AM, elij <elij...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> > >> >>> >> I guess I don't see the need for this. >> >>> >> If you want to see 'new packages', just use the rss feed. >> >>> >> Dumping this in the rcp api seems... wrong to me. >> >>> > >> >>> > Thank you the feedback! My opinion in this matter is that if I'd like >> >>> > to >> >>> > create a frontend program for AUR, especially console based e.g., or to >> >>> > create another API/backend for AUR, then the json interface/output >> >>> > would be >> >>> > more portable than parsing html/xml pages to get an option for a >> >>> > command >> >>> > line frontend to get the newly submitted/updated packages. >> >>> > >> >>> > Rss feed and this option are different purposes in fact. >> >>> > With this option from command line you could get anytime the newly >> >>> > updated/submitted packages, but with rss you see them continously. >> >>> > The first facility is really console based, but the second is >> >>> > webpage based, I think it's different or maybe I'm wrong. >> >>> >> >>> You could do the exact same thing with an RSS feed... I don't >> >>> understand how this data being in RSS makes it so that you cannot >> >>> fetch the results whenever you want. RSS isn't made of magic. >> >> >> >> I wasn't sure if this was a good idea, but then I wondered why we're >> >> fragmenting the data into different interfaces (RSS, JSON, web) rather >> >> than unifying everything under one interface. >> >> >> >> So after my initial apprehension this enhancement makes sense to me, but >> >> I'd like to see it do caching like the RSS does. >> > >> > If you are bound and determined to do it, then memcache would be >> > sufficient for caching it (so it can kind of cache like the RSS does). >> > Not sure if memcached is running on the aur server yet, but I am sure >> > someone could slap it on there without difficulty if it isn't. >> > >> >> fyi. I still think it is a bad idea. >> Just trying to point out where the duct tape is laying. :P > > FWIW, I agree with cactus here. Moving the recent updates off of RSS > would make the behavior of the AUR different from the main Arch site in > this regard. The RPC interface just doesn't seem to be the right place > for this.
Flickr actually has two APIs - a feed based one and a REST based "ajax" API. Both accept a format=foo parameter and json is allowed for both sets. * Is the AUR's rss feed generated per request? Or is it a static output file? * If it's generated, why not simply use the same "format=" thing here. Note that Flickr finds it totally acceptable and ideal to use feeds in addition to their API