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(a)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(a)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(a)gmail.com>
Reply: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>>
Date: August 6, 2014 at 9:52:34
To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l