Timeline for please add a key fields to stackauth results
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 13, 2010 at 15:49 | comment | added | systempuntoout | @Kevin that's what YOU are saying, not me :D! We are not asking any custom tailored feature here, c'mon. Anyway, i give up ;). | |
| Jul 13, 2010 at 15:39 | comment | added | Kevin Montrose | @systempuntoout - So what you're saying is that the API provides exactly what you need to make a workable solution, but it has to be manipulated somewhat. The API will not be custom tailored to any particular [app] or even class of [app]. | |
| Jul 13, 2010 at 12:51 | comment | added | systempuntoout | @Kevin as i said in my BUMP answer, my solution is working but i'm forced to do extraparsing that, in my opinion, could be avoidable. | |
| Jul 12, 2010 at 14:48 | comment | added | Kevin Montrose |
@systempuntoout - the description suggestion was in jest. You could always, you know, not expose that particular detail to users directly in the url... Though I don't really see the problem with doing what you're doing, just stripping http:// off of site_url.
|
|
| Jul 12, 2010 at 14:38 | comment | added | systempuntoout | @Kevin if you look at my example, i'm not using an opaque string or an integer but simply the domain without the first level. Name and site_url are ugly keywords. Imho you are not carefully thinking how these keys will be used, expecially on web applications. Have a look at Farseeker post, you are suggesting him to adopt a solution like "column80.com/?site=Q&A for professional and enthusiast programmers !" | |
| Jul 12, 2010 at 14:11 | comment | added | Kevin Montrose |
@systempuntoout - I fail to see how an integer or an opaque string is more SEO-friendly, whatever that means. I also fail to see how keying off a string is arduous. If you're not concerned about cache-ing over "site graduates from beta" periods of time, you can use name just as well as site_url - heck, you could use description if you wanted, that's unlikely to change frequently.
|
|
| Jul 12, 2010 at 13:07 | comment | added | systempuntoout | @Kevin I don't like it and i don't think that something like stackoverflow.com can be key-friendly, url-friendly or seo-friendly. Please keep in mind that there are apps using these "keys" as parameter on Urls (like mine or column 80). | |
| Jul 12, 2010 at 11:23 | history | edited | Kevin Montrose | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
I don't think aliases existed when this was written, updating.
|
| Jun 16, 2010 at 19:17 | comment | added | Kevin Montrose |
@code poet - ... you obviously already know the association_id, as you passed it to the method. The only reason members of {id} are returned in "proper" api methods is because {id} is vectorized, and thus the returned objects are ambiguously associated without an id field. Why return redundant information?
|
|
| Jun 16, 2010 at 18:25 | comment | added | Sky Sanders | your decision to omit/not include the id from the result seems arbitrary. if you can explain your position rather than dismissing the request as unnecessary we might be able to have a dialog. as it is, i am just a bit offended. | |
| Jun 16, 2010 at 18:19 | comment | added | Sky Sanders | -1 I will defer on the site key for now. The association id is another story. There is no key at all in the results of users/id/associated. if a resource requires a key to acquire the key should be a component of the resource. | |
| Jun 16, 2010 at 14:15 | comment | added | Mark Henderson | If you're not familiar with Nissan v Nissan, back when Nissan was called Datsun a guy who's surname was Nissan registered Nissan.com - then Datsun changed their name TO Nissan and have been suing the guy for about the last 15 years to get his domain name. Sounds absurd, but it happens. Just sayin... | |
| Jun 16, 2010 at 14:06 | comment | added | Kevin Montrose | @Farseeker - That's awfully unlikely. For one, we take strides not to create sites that are obviously trademark infringing, and what makes you think an abbreviation widely known on the internet to mean "Nissan blah blah" would be safe from such a suit anyway? | |
| Jun 16, 2010 at 13:19 | history | answered | Kevin Montrose | CC BY-SA 2.5 |