Good point about pending requests for protected accounts and the opportunity to get parity. My inclination is rather than overloading following and followed_by that we potentially introduce a 'pending' attribute that is either true or empty. Similarly we could add a 'blocked'/'blocked_by'.
These additional attributes sway me toward going with the representation that (redundantly) specifies the values of each attribute with the source and target sections as encoding this information in 'source_has_a_pending_request_for_target' and 'target_has_a_pending_request_for_source', etc start to get somewhat unwieldy. On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 4:29 PM, jim.renkel <james.ren...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It seems from the examples, but not explicitly stated anywhere, that > the values of the following and followed_by items are booleans, > implying that a user either is or is not following another user. > > While at first blush that seems true, I think in reality the situation > is a little more complicated, especially if you consider protected > users. > > I would propose that these items be enumerations, with the following > values and meanings: > - "yes": user A, say, is following user B; > - "no": user A is not following user B, has not requested the > relationship, and is not blocked from doing so; > - "pending": user A has requested to follow (protected) user B, but B > has not yet accepted, rejected, or blocked the request; and > - "blocked": user A requested to follow (protected) user B, but B > blocked the request. > > What I'm looking for here is parity, if you will, between the data and > facilities that are available to the twitter.com web site and to API > users. This is one place where there was not parity, and we have the > opportunity to now get it. > > Comments expected, welcome, and appreciated. > > Jim Renkel > > On Jun 9, 1:13 pm, Damon Clinkscales <sca...@pobox.com> wrote: > > If you're going to redefine the way that follow information is > > returned, I believe that it should include the effect of "protected" > > accounts on both sides of the follow equation. > > > > Thanks, > > -damon > > --http://twitter.com/damon > > > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Marcel Molina<mar...@twitter.com> > wrote: > > > Thanks for the suggestion Chad. > > > What do others think of > > > {"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 > > > } > > > } > > > versus > > > > > {"relationship": { > > > > > "source": { > > > > > "id": 123, > > > > > "screen_name": "bob", > > > > > "following": true, > > > > > "followed_by": false, > > > > > "notifications_enabled": false }, > > > > > "target": { > > > > > "id": 456, > > > > > "screen_name": "jack", > > > > > "following": false, > > > > > "followed_by": true, > > > > > "notifications_enabled": null } > > > > > } > > > > > } > -- Marcel Molina Twitter API Team http://twitter.com/noradio
