API vs REST/CONTENT API? If we end up exposing rest API via the same entry point, no reason of even calling it anything else. If we have a separate entry point (why?), we could call it REST API or CONTENT API, specifying that it is mostly for the rendered content as opposed to internal database data. On Aug 6, 2014 1:04 PM, "Petr Bena" benapetr@gmail.com wrote:
The Chosen One's API. In short: Tchopi :P
Do we really need to call it somehow? When you will say "api" 99% of people who know mediawiki a bit will go for api.php. Special naming should be used just for the other weird api's that nobody is ever going to use anyway.
Btw, why do we need to have them in secondary php files / entry points?
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerromeo@gmail.com wrote:
Definitely agree with this. It’s the only API that is part of core, so
“MediaWiki API” makes sense.
-- Tyler Romeo 0x405D34A7C86B42DF
From: Bartosz Dziewoński matma.rex@gmail.com Reply: Wikimedia developers wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Date: August 6, 2014 at 9:52:34 To: Wikimedia developers wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Bikeshedding a good name for "the api.php API"
How about just "the MediaWiki API"? That's the only proper external API core MediaWiki has, as far as I'm aware.
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