So, it seems like the general preference is for something closer to my original option #2, which requires more specificity in the URL for posting a status. Any big arguments against that sentiment?
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 4:46 PM, jim.renkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I also like and vote for what Joel has proposed. > > 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 > -- Alex Payne - API Lead, Twitter, Inc. http://twitter.com/al3x
