fub: (Default)
fub ([personal profile] fub) wrote in [site community profile] dw_dev2009-09-29 10:57 pm
Entry tags:

Client API for extensions?

I'm the maintainer of the Benzaiten client -- it's one of the few LJ clients for Linux that is still actively maintained.
Some of my users ask me to support the Dreamwidth-specific extensions in my client. However, I can't seem to find any API documentation for this. Are these features exposed through the client API? If so, where can I find out more?
And if not, is this on the roadmap for the future?
foxfirefey: A fox colored like flame over an ornately framed globe (Default)

[personal profile] foxfirefey 2009-09-30 11:30 pm (UTC)(link)
Do you have a list of what you want? If it's easy to do, I might be able to get it done in a bit.
mark: A photo of Mark kneeling on top of the Taal Volcano in the Philippines. It was a long hike. (Default)

[staff profile] mark 2009-10-01 06:19 am (UTC)(link)
Yeah, agreed. "Add new APIs" is a huge project, "Add an API so I can see what trust groups there are, and who's in them" is probably pretty easily doable.

I really want to enable API functionality for clients, and would be happy to pitch in too.
foxfirefey: A fox colored like flame over an ornately framed globe (Default)

[personal profile] foxfirefey 2009-10-01 06:23 am (UTC)(link)
I'm thinking that it would probably be easy to add in a couple new XML-RPC functions.

My main interest is totally overhauling our ATOM; I've been researching it and trying to figure out how to best go about it and kind of excited about it. I know it'll be a while before clients actually start implementing it, but I think it'll be worth it for when they do, because so much can be done that way.
exor674: Computer Science is my girlfriend (Default)

[personal profile] exor674 2009-10-01 06:27 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm really sure what is better -- extending the heck out of ATOM -- or implementing some standard APIs but keeping the custom XML-RPC and flat APIs around.

Updating it to be recent -- sure. But how is adding custom extensions to a standard any better than maintaining out XML-RPC API.
foxfirefey: A fox colored like flame over an ornately framed globe (Default)

[personal profile] foxfirefey 2009-10-01 07:04 pm (UTC)(link)
Well, I think what [personal profile] fub is asking for is more updating it to be recent and giving back functionality that got lost in the WTF split.

As far as I know, one of the big advantages to extending the heck out of ATOM is autodiscoverability--that is, the protocol has a way for a client to figure out what collections of items the service has available for editing and modification. And a client doesn't have to do anything custom, like add different XML-RPC functions, to work with those if it's clever about it.
foxfirefey: A wee rat holds a paw to its mouth. Oh, the shock! (myword)

[personal profile] foxfirefey 2009-10-01 06:53 am (UTC)(link)
I dunno, the flat API is kind of the oldest and most deprecated--I was thinking of adding things to the XML-RPC one.
exor674: Computer Science is my girlfriend (Default)

[personal profile] exor674 2009-10-01 06:22 pm (UTC)(link)
Flat and XML-RPC use the same exact backend code with just a little glue to unpack for flat -- so...
foxfirefey: A fox colored like flame over an ornately framed globe (Default)

[personal profile] foxfirefey 2009-10-01 06:23 pm (UTC)(link)
I guess in that case we might as well! DW client development needs to be encouraged, so.