It doesn't seem like anyone's mentioned it yet, but it would be even nicer IMHO to not even worry about this class of problems by versioning the API itself. This way, you can provide an explicit "upgrade" path for actively-developed clients while keeping old versions around for legacy clients. As a result, marking an old (or previously deprecated) API (version) obsolete will only effect clients who haven't upgraded to the new version.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Yuri Astrakhan yastrakhan@wikimedia.org wrote:
I still think that we should provide a simple API clients for JS, PHP, and python. JS version should support both Browser & node.js. The libs should handle the most rudimentary API functioning like logins, warnings, & continuation, in the way that API devs feel is best, but nothing specific to any of the modules (e.g. it should not have a separate function to get a list of all pages).
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Jon Robson jdlrobson@gmail.com wrote:
Is there a phab task for that.. ? :-)
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjorsch@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Jon Robson jdlrobson@gmail.com
wrote:
I use mw.api so I suspect that to handle deprecation notices - does it not? If not why not?
Because no one coded it for that framework yet?
-- Brad Jorsch (Anomie) Software Engineer Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
-- Jon Robson
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l