With the implementation of #5, responses from route-agnostic RPCs have no indication of which route each arrival is from. In other words, the context of the arrival is lost.
It'd be nice to add some route information to the responses from the RPCs so that consumers can keep that context and map arrivals to different routes, even if the requests they make do not specify that information.
An example response with route information could look like:
faultyserver
commented
7 years ago
With the implementation of #5, responses from route-agnostic RPCs have no indication of which route each arrival is from. In other words, the context of the arrival is lost.
It'd be nice to add some route information to the responses from the RPCs so that consumers can keep that context and map arrivals to different routes, even if the requests they make do not specify that information.
An example response with route information could look like:
More information can be added, but keeping route and headsign information should be sufficient for calls to create a full context about the arrival.
This information should be added to all responses for consistency and to avoid surprises in the API.