Hi Marcel,
Welcome to Twitter, btw (if I'm allowed to say that).
One unambiguous way might be:
{"relationship": {
"source": {
"id": 123,
"screen_name": "bob",
"notifications": false },
"target": {
"id": 456,
"screen_name": "jack",
"notifications": null },
"source_follows_target": true,
"source_followed_by_target": false
}
}
This also eliminates redundant data.
Btw, http://twitter.com/@noradio doesn't quite work as a link :)
-Chad
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Marcel Molina <mar...@twitter.com> wrote:
>
> Hey Chad, thanks for your feedback.
>
> Thought experiment: Put aside the currently proposed response body for
> the moment. How would you unambiguously express the following/followed
> by relationship?
>
> Marcel Molina
> Twitter API Team
> http://twitter.com/@noradio
>
> On Jun 9, 10:23 am, Chad Etzel <jazzyc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thanks for adding the extra verbiage.
>>
>> However, I'm still not clear how to decipher the exact relationship
>> given the data. In the example, is Bob following Jack? ...or is Jack
>> following Bob?
>>
>> -Chad
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Doug Williams <d...@twitter.com> wrote:
>> > Thanks, Chad. I've augmented the usage notes section to explain the
>> > rationale behind the denormalized and redundant data.
>> > Thanks,
>> > Doug
>>
>> > On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Chad Etzel <jazzyc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Taking a look at the json return example:
>> >> {"relationship": {
>> >> "source": {
>> >> "id": 123,
>> >> "screen_name": "bob",
>> >> "following": true,
>> >> "followed_by": false,
>> >> "notifications": false },
>>
>> >> "target": {
>> >> "id": 456,
>> >> "screen_name": "jack",
>> >> "following": false,
>> >> "followed_by": true,
>> >> "notifications": null }
>> >> }
>> >> }
>>
>> >> In the "source" object (i.e. for "bob"), "following" is true. Does
>> >> this mean that Bob is following Jack, or vice-versa?
>>
>> >> Knowing that, the other 3 following/followed_by value meanings can be
>> >> properly inferred. Some clarification on the page would help.
>>
>> >> -Chad
>>
>> >> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Doug Williams <d...@twitter.com> wrote:
>> >> > That makes things difficult. Permissions are now public.
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> > Doug
>>
>> >> > On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Chad Etzel <jazzyc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> <qoute>
>> >> >> Access Denied
>>
>> >> >> You don't have permission to look at Twitter REST API Method:
>> >> >> friendships
>> >> >> show.
>> >> >> </quote>
>>
>> >> >> :)
>> >> >> -Chad
>>
>> >> >> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Doug Williams <d...@twitter.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > We discussed the need to deprecate the <following> and
>> >> >> > <notifications>
>> >> >> > elements [1] a few weeks back. We have begun work on the
>> >> >> > friendships/show
>> >> >> > method as mentioned in the notice. The method is slightly out of our
>> >> >> > conventional design, so we are soliciting opinions on its fitness for
>> >> >> > general use-cases. Please peruse the purposed method's documentation
>> >> >> > [2]
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > let us know what you think.
>>
>> >> >> > 1. http://groups.google.com/group/twitter-development-talk/browse_frm/th...
>>
>> >> >> > 2. http://apiwiki.twitter.com/Twitter-REST-API-Method%3A-friendships-show
>> >> >> > Thanks,
>> >> >> > Doug
>
