search

VertNet / api

Codebase for the new module-based VertNet app. API module
1 stars 0 forks source link

In general, make the API an actual REST API #4

Open jotegui opened 8 years ago

jotegui commented 8 years ago

That means basically allow for POST messages and send and receive JSON data

tucotuco commented 8 years ago

As nice as this might be,deliver of JSON to most users will not be very useful. They will not know what to do with it.

jotegui commented 8 years ago

I see what you mean, @tucotuco , but who uses the API if not more advanced users? "Regular" users will access the data via any of the available wrappers (portal, rvertnet...) but maybe more advanced users would want a more direct access to the data, to develop their own wrappers or to integrate data in their own workflows. And in those cases, providing a full-fledged API might be beneficial in terms of outreach? Just thinking out loud here.

In any case, definitely not a "critical" issue (I don't really know why did I add that label), but maybe something to consider for further down the road?

tucotuco commented 8 years ago

Actually, I agree entirely. I was thinking of downloads rather than the search API.

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 5:01 AM, Javier Otegui notifications@github.com wrote:

I see what you mean, @tucotuco https://github.com/tucotuco , but who uses the API if not more advanced users? "Regular" users will access the data via any of the available wrappers (portal, rvertnet...) but maybe more advanced users would want a more direct access to the data, to develop their own wrappers or to integrate data in their own workflows. And in those cases, providing a full-fledged API might be beneficial in terms of outreach? Just thinking out loud here.

In any case, definitely not a "critical" issue (I don't really know why did I add that label), but maybe something to consider for further down the road?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/VertNet/api/issues/4#issuecomment-221194792