Re: Opinions wanted: a more RESTful way to update your status

2008-10-14 Thread jim.renkel

I too like Joel's idea.

Jim Renkel

On Oct 14, 2:58 pm, Vinuth Madinur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 +1 to what Joel said.

 On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 12:37 AM, jstrellner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Personally I've always liked URI's that can be broken into name/value
  pairs.  In this case, I would like to see:

 http://api.twitter.com/v/1.0/status/bob.xml

  What it is basically saying is:
   - Version: 1.0
   - Status for Bob in XML

  If we are POSTing to it, you know (progamatically) that we are trying
  to update that user (and that we should be authenticated as that
  user).  If we are GETing it, you know that we want to see all of that
  users status updates (and authenticated as one of their friends if
  they are protected).

  Basically, I guess I am proposing the merging of statuses and
  user_timeline into just status.

  If you get rid of the generic URLs, then you can easily make sure that
  they are posting to the right account.  If they are currently
  authenticated as sally, but they are trying to post to
 http://api.twitter.com/v/1.0/status/bob.xml, you know that something
  is wrong since they should be posting 
  tohttp://api.twitter.com/v/1.0/status/sally.xml

  -Joel

  On Oct 13, 5:11 pm, Alex Payne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I'm sitting down with @mzsanford this week to spec out what we're
  calling the API Service internally, the next version of the Twitter
  API.  We're going to have a number of questions that we want your
  feedback on, and this is the first.

  Currently, the URL to which you POST to update a user's status is this:

   http://twitter.com/statuses/update.format

  This breaks RESTful conventions and is generally a bit ugly.  We're
  considering one of the following, either:

    POSThttp://api.twitter.com/1/statuses.xml

  ... or:

    POSThttp://api.twitter.com/1/users/bob/statuses.xml

  The difference is all in RESTful semantics.  In the first case, you're
  POSTing a new status to the universal collection of statuses.  In the
  second case, you're POSTing a new status to user bob's collection of
  statuses.

  Which do you all prefer and why?  Alternatives welcome.

  --
  Alex Payne - API Lead, Twitter, Inc.http://twitter.com/al3x


Opinions wanted: a more RESTful way to update your status

2008-10-13 Thread Alex Payne

I'm sitting down with @mzsanford this week to spec out what we're
calling the API Service internally, the next version of the Twitter
API.  We're going to have a number of questions that we want your
feedback on, and this is the first.

Currently, the URL to which you POST to update a user's status is this:

  http://twitter.com/statuses/update.format

This breaks RESTful conventions and is generally a bit ugly.  We're
considering one of the following, either:

  POST http://api.twitter.com/1/statuses.xml

... or:

  POST http://api.twitter.com/1/users/bob/statuses.xml

The difference is all in RESTful semantics.  In the first case, you're
POSTing a new status to the universal collection of statuses.  In the
second case, you're POSTing a new status to user bob's collection of
statuses.

Which do you all prefer and why?  Alternatives welcome.

-- 
Alex Payne - API Lead, Twitter, Inc.
http://twitter.com/al3x