Return to Question

There have been 141 bugs posted, with 100 completed, 23 bydesign, 7 norepro and 2 deferred, leaving 11 unaddressed so far, which isn't nice, but all in all bugs have been handled properly and promptly so far.

On the other hand there have been 118 feature-requests posted, with only 23 completed, 3 bydesign, 20 declined, 12 deferred and 4 planned, so a whopping 56 are not even acknowledged/classified officially as of today. (Note that a couple of feature requests are covered in API V2 Musings: What would you like to see as well.)

A more recent and granular update regarding this has been Kevins answer to Timeline for v2.0 of the API?, which added bugs and improvements to the API v2 theme:

Recently I've fast forwarded through Jeffs Interview to get some clues eventually, and actually did - please see Selective API oriented transcript fragment of Jeffs Code Camp Video Interview for a bit more context, but essentially Jeff is expressing serious doubts about the feasibility of a write enabled API:

I'd rather say it is a strong hint towards a necessary shift in pace and scope in order to let the API evolve more agile with the platform as best as possible under the current read only restriction. I'd personally pretty much prefer an API keeping track of essential and stabilized platform improvements (e.g. Linked Questions, Tag Wikis, Tag Info Pages etc.) over waiting for the golden age of writing (and authentication), which apparently isn't going to happen anytime soon, if ever.

There have been 141 bugs posted, with 100 completed, 23 bydesign, 7 norepro and 2 deferred, leaving 11 unaddressed so far, which isn't nice, but all in all bugs have been handled properly and promptly so far.

On the other hand there have been 118 feature-requests posted, with only 23 completed, 3 bydesign, 20 declined, 12 deferred and 4 planned, so a whopping 56 are not even acknowledged/classified officially as of today. (Note that a couple of feature requests are covered in API V2 Musings: What would you like to see as well.)

A more recent and granular update regarding this has been Kevins answer to Timeline for v2.0 of the API?, which added bugs and improvements to the API v2 theme:

Recently I've fast forwarded through Jeffs Interview to get some clues eventually, and actually did - please see Selective API oriented transcript fragment of Jeffs Code Camp Video Interview for a bit more context, but essentially Jeff is expressing serious doubts about the feasibility of a write enabled API:

I'd rather say it is a strong hint towards a necessary shift in pace and scope in order to let the API evolve more agile with the platform as best as possible under the current read only restriction. I'd personally pretty much prefer an API keeping track of essential and stabilized platform improvements (e.g. Linked Questions, Tag Wikis, Tag Info Pages etc.) over waiting for the golden age of writing (and authentication), which apparently isn't going to happen anytime soon, if ever.

After announcing the Stack Exchange API Contest Winners there haven't been much promotional activities, as far as I know; it seems particularly worrying that respective inquiries do not even get any comment from the authorities, see Is it possible to have a StackApps Advertising - Sidebar contest?.

There are still no API Terms of Service and I haven't gotten any kind of feedback regarding this on several channels, see e.g. Where can I find the “API Terms of Service” referred to from the legal pages?

The outlined partial (or rather selective) lack of feedback can be seen on MSO as well, but I think it is even more of a problem for API/App developers, who need to decide whether and how to deal with their own app user base and roadmap in this regard; this is a rather huge impediment for anybody considering investments into App development from a professional perspective (i.e. time/money), I'm afraid.

After announcing the Stack Exchange API Contest Winners there haven't been much promotional activities, as far as I know; it seems particularly worrying that respective inquiries do not even get any comment from the authorities, see Is it possible to have a StackApps Advertising - Sidebar contest?.

There are still no API Terms of Service and I haven't gotten any kind of feedback regarding this on several channels, see e.g. Where can I find the “API Terms of Service” referred to from the legal pages?

The outlined partial (or rather selective) lack of feedback can be seen on MSO as well, but I think it is even more of a problem for API/App developers, who need to decide whether and how to deal with their own app user base and roadmap in this regard; this is a rather huge impediment for anybody considering investments into App development from a professional perspective (i.e. time/money), I'm afraid.

After announcing the Stack Exchange API Contest Winners there haven't been much promotional activities, as far as I know; it seems particularly worrying that respective inquiries do not even get any comment from the authorities, see Is it possible to have a StackApps Advertising - Sidebar contest?.

[...] defects in v1.0. Part of v2.0 would be addressing these issues [...]

Another part of v2.0 would be bringing the API into line with the improvements made on the sites. [...]

Finally, since we've implied - though not quite promised - write access in v2.0 the exact mechanisms for that need to be worked out. [...]

Recently I've fast forwarded through Jeffs Interview to get some clues eventually, and actually did - please see Selective API oriented transcript fragment of Jeffs Code Camp Video Interview for a bit more context, but essentially Jeff is expressing serious doubts about the feasibility of a write enabled API:

Still, this puts a serious bump into the current expectations among Stack Apps developers, I'm afraid, in so far writing (and authentication) have been the number one feature request, obviously.

  However, this shouldn't provide a full stop to API development forever, or should it?

I'd rather say it is a strong hint towards a necessary shift in pace and scope in order to let the API evolve more agile with the platform as best as possible under the current read only restriction. I'd personally pretty much prefer an API keeping track of essential and stabilized platform improvements (e.g. Linked Questions, Tag Wikis, Tag Info Pages etc.) over waiting for the golden age of writing (and authentication), which apparently isn't going to happen anytime soon, if ever.

After announcing the Stack Exchange API Contest Winners there haven't been much promotional activities, as far as I know; it seems particularly worrying that respective inquiries do not even get any comment from the authorities, see Is it possible to have a StackApps Advertising - Sidebar contest?.

[...] defects in v1.0. Part of v2.0 would be addressing these issues [...]

Another part of v2.0 would be bringing the API into line with the improvements made on the sites. [...]

Finally, since we've implied - though not quite promised - write access in v2.0 the exact mechanisms for that need to be worked out. [...]

Recently I've fast forwarded through Jeffs Interview to get some clues eventually, and actually did - please see Selective API oriented transcript fragment of Jeffs Code Camp Video Interview for a bit more context, but essentially Jeff is expressing serious doubts about the feasibility of a write enabled API:

Still, this puts a serious bump into the current expectations among Stack Apps developers, I'm afraid, in so far writing (and authentication) have been the number one feature request, obviously. However, this shouldn't provide a full stop to API development forever, or should it?

I'd rather say it is a strong hint towards a necessary shift in pace and scope in order to let the API evolve more agile with the platform as best as possible under the current read only restriction. I'd personally pretty much prefer an API keeping track of essential and stabilized platform improvements (e.g. Linked Questions, Tag Wikis, Tag Info Pages etc.) over waiting for the golden age of writing (and authentication), which apparently isn't going to happen anytime soon, if ever.