On 27 October 2014 08:49, Wladimir <laa...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Melvin Carvalho > <melvincarva...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Firstly, apologies in coming in late to the conversation. As I am also > > working on a REST API for electronic coins. Some questions: > > > > 1. Is there a BIP, or some other doc (e.g. gist), outlining the REST > output > > e.g. the response format and MIME types. Or just compile from source? > > See the opening post from @jgarzik, it has some documentation on how > to use the API. > > It would be nice to have some write-up about the current functionality > in the release notes, but there currently is none. > > It's a RPC-side change, not a P2P-side change so it doesn't require a BIP. >
Thanks. Yes, I worked this out after looking at the code. I would be happy to help with documentation. > > > 2. How set in stone is v1 of the the going forward? PS I support > @maaku's > > comments re: "/api/v1/" -- tho I guess it is too late for that now. > > 3. Would there be any support to develop this interface into something > that > > would be W3C standards compliant, or reviewed by the REST community. So > for > > example a context can be provided to self document the terms (something > I've > > almost completed) and would allow standardization of block explorer and > > bitcoind outputs. Right now every explorer seems to have a different > JSON > > output. > > It's not too late, it's not been merged yet. > > Though a W3C standard takes a long time to pan out, and it may be more > useful to have this available rather than wait for the API to be > standardized (which means this will need to be postponed at least one > version). As you say, a new interface be added later under another > URI. > Agree. I think these changes are great for 0.10. > > Note that we're only interested in exposing read-only, public data > which is already available in Bitcoin Core's internals. > We're not aiming to add a fully-fledged block explorer with (say) > address indexes. Although that could be part of the standard if it > allows implementations to support just a subset. > Got it thanks. > > Anyhow - please coordinate this with Jeff Garzik, it's better to work > together here. > Will do. Work in this area is ongoing, both in terms of coding/patches/testing and documentation. Do you think it would a reasonable idea to put down some thoughts and proposals in a BIP? > > Wladimir >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
