[aur-dev] [PATCH] Add newly submitted packages functionality with json interface

[Randy Morris]

On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 03:16:26PM -0700, elij wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 3:15 PM, elij <elij.mx at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 3:54 AM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue 06 Oct 2009 14:03 -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Laszlo Papp <djszapi at archlinux.us> wrote:
> >>> > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 1:40 AM, elij <elij.mx at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> I guess I don't see the need for this.
> >>> >> If you want to see 'new packages', just use the rss feed.
> >>> >> Dumping this in the rcp api seems... wrong to me.
> >>> >
> >>> > Thank you the feedback! My opinion in this matter is that if I'd like to
> >>> > create a frontend program for AUR, especially console based e.g., or to
> >>> > create another API/backend for AUR, then the json interface/output would be
> >>> > more portable than parsing html/xml pages to get an option for a command
> >>> > line frontend to get the newly submitted/updated packages.
> >>> >
> >>> > Rss feed and this option are different purposes in fact.
> >>> > With this option from command line you could get anytime the newly
> >>> > updated/submitted packages, but with rss you see them continously.
> >>> > The first facility is really console based, but the second is
> >>> > webpage based, I think it's different or maybe I'm wrong.
> >>>
> >>> You could do the exact same thing with an RSS feed... I don't
> >>> understand how this data being in RSS makes it so that you cannot
> >>> fetch the results whenever you want. RSS isn't made of magic.
> >>
> >> I wasn't sure if this was a good idea, but then I wondered why we're
> >> fragmenting the data into different interfaces (RSS, JSON, web) rather
> >> than unifying everything under one interface.
> >>
> >> So after my initial apprehension this enhancement makes sense to me, but
> >> I'd like to see it do caching like the RSS does.
> >
> > If you are bound and determined to do it, then memcache would be
> > sufficient for caching it (so it can kind of cache like the RSS does).
> > Not sure if memcached is running on the aur server yet, but I am sure
> > someone could slap it on there without difficulty if it isn't.
> >
> 
> fyi. I still think it is a bad idea.
> Just trying to point out where the duct tape is laying. :P

FWIW, I agree with cactus here.  Moving the recent updates off of RSS
would make the behavior of the AUR different from the main Arch site in
this regard.  The RPC interface just doesn't seem to be the right place
for this.