On 2/20/2017 12:19 AM, Andy Allan wrote:
I can see the purpose of this, but I've never seen it as being as high a priority as other developers do.
For me the concerns all stem from code duplication, principally leading to more optimization work on one path, so cgimap is much faster than browse pages. You can see a good example of this with relation history pages that time out while the cgimap powered API call is much faster.
I do consider this less important than my other API proposals, but I have students interested in it
For example, I can see why the browse pages shouldn't have access to the data in a manner that's not exposed in the API, but that to me suggests improving the API, rather than forcing a lowest-common-denominator approach of forcing the browse pages to use the API.
I'm not advocating reducing the functionality of the browse pages. Part of the work with this is identifying what is lacking in the API. I hope to propose a new call to start the discussion before GSoC.
I would avoid the pure-javascript approach, as it's just rewriting for the sake of rewriting. My suggestion would be to just change the existing browse pages code slightly - the controllers should make (internal) calls to the API endpoints, to replace their direct db access. Even better if those internal API calls are processed by cgimap-ruby!
As I see it, either way accomplishes the goal of having the requests for object information go through a common path and come with tradeoffs.
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
