On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Robert Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am trying to think of the URIs as mapping to resources on the web, and
> trying to read it out loud. Consequently, please see the reading of URIs and
> some questions/suggestions interspersed below.
>
> Thanks,
> Bob
Hey bob, thanks for asking these questions. This is the stuff that
really needs to be fleshed out. This should probably have originally
been sent to the spec list.... i'm doing that now.
Do you think some of these query like statements are similar to what
the java storage interface needs to look like? Right now there's just
'getPersonData' and 'getPeople'. in Cassie's BasicDataService and
BasicPeopleService. Is there a contribution of this interface coming
to shindig in the future?
>
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 10:02 PM, David Primmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
> > We're struggling with these implementation details right now. I'd love
> > to see what others have decided on.
> >
> > quick summary of the proposed url system (just for the people api)
> >
> > /people/{uid}/all -- Collection of all people connected to user
> > {uid}
>
>
> Sounds like: "Get people for user, {uid}; all of them."
>
>
> >
> > /people/{uid}/friends -- Collection of all friends of user {uid};
> > subset of all
>
>
> Sounds like: "Get people for user, {uid}; only those who are friends."
>
>
> >
> > /people/{uid}/{groupid} -- Collection of all people connected to user
> > {uid} in group {groupid}
>
>
> Sounds like: "Get people for user, {uid}; who are also in group_id."
>
> That one is confusing. Won't this be the same as all people in {group id}? I
> have only a vague concept of "group" here, so please correct that for me.
>
if groupid is globally unique, then it would probably work. I think
john mentioned that these qualifier variables may not be guids, and
thus would be relative to the {uid} container.
>
>
> >
> > /people/{uid}/all/{pid} -- Individual person record.
>
>
> Sounds like: "Get people for user, {uid}; All of them. Only with person id,
> {pid}."
>
> Why not drop the 'all'? /people/{uid}/{pid}
maybe there's a different projection here? the relationship is implied
less directly than if the resources are just separated by a slash.
>
> Then it could sound like, "Get people for user, {uid}; with person id,
> {pid}."
> Sounds like: "Get people for user, {uid}, with person id {pid}."
>
>
>
> > /people/{uid}/sel -- Self Profile record for user {uid}
sorry. typo. this is supposed to be /self
>
>
> Sounds like, "Get people for user, {uid}; sel."
>
> Why not drop the 'sel' here, and /people/{uid}/ just refers to that user
> resource specified by {uid}.
i think what you're saying is basically ok, except that /people/{uid}/
is the collection and not the entry so you'd want /people/{uid}
without the trailing slash to give the profile data for the user. I'll
let john answer as to why he chose these flavors of /self and /all.
They could also be done with opensearch semantics.
>
>
> > /groups/{uid}/self -- Collection of groups owned by the
> > user, which always contains 'all' and 'friends' and may contain more.
> > (Details TBD)
> >
> >
> Sounds like: "Get groups for user, {uid}; self."
> Perhaps, predicated on the group definition, it could just be /groups/{uid}
> which gets all groups that user, {uid} belongs (owns?) to.
>
> What is group ownership? Is the group any subset of people that a user
> knows?
>
