If you include user_id or screen_name in you authorize url they will be replaced on callback.
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 12:27, Matt Sanford <m...@twitter.com> wrote: > Hi Chad, > They should, yes. I did not test what will happen if you already have a > user_id or screen_name parameter but based on the logic it should add a > second one. For an example of what they look like where there are no other > parameters take a gander at the return page on Abraham's sample app: > http://twitter.abrah.am/ > > Thanks; > — Matt > > On Apr 9, 2009, at 10:24 AM, Chad Etzel wrote: > > > Hi Matt, > > Unfortunately I don't have time right now to throw together a sample > app to test this, so I'll ask you :) > > Do these new parameters play nice with possibly pre-existing > parameters in the callback? > > i.e. > if callback is > http://foo.com/bar/baz.html > then the re-direct will actually call > http://foo.com/bar/baz.html?user_id=123456&screen_name=yahooti > > and if callback is > http://foo.com/bar/baz.html?param1=val1¶m2=val2 > then the re-direct will actually call > > http://foo.com/bar/baz.html?param1=val1¶m2=val2&user_id=123456&screen_name=yahooti > > Thanks, > -Chad > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Matt Sanford <m...@twitter.com> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > I totally forgot to mention another feature I added yesterday. The > > redirect back to your app after authorization now has two new parameters. I > > added the user_id and screen_name so you can get to work without calling > > verify_credentials. > > > Thanks; > > — Matt Sanford > > > -- Abraham Williams | Hacker | http://abrah.am @poseurtech | http://the.hackerconundrum.com Web608 | Community Evangelist | http://web608.org This email is: [ ] blogable [x] ask first [ ] private. Sent from Madison, Wisconsin, United States
