On 27 October 2014 08:49, Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Melvin Carvalho
> <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Firstly, apologies in coming in late to the conversation.  As I am also
> > working on a REST API for electronic coins.  Some questions:
> >
> > 1. Is there a BIP, or some other doc (e.g. gist), outlining the REST
> output
> > e.g. the response format and MIME types.  Or just compile from source?
>
> See the opening post from @jgarzik, it has some documentation on how
> to use the API.
>
> It would be nice to have some write-up about the current functionality
> in the release notes, but there currently is none.
>
> It's a RPC-side change, not a P2P-side change so it doesn't require a BIP.
>

Thanks.  Yes, I worked this out after looking at the code.

I would be happy to help with documentation.


>
> > 2. How set in stone is v1 of the the going forward?  PS I support
> @maaku's
> > comments re: "/api/v1/" -- tho I guess it is too late for that now.
> > 3. Would there be any support to develop this interface into something
> that
> > would be W3C standards compliant, or reviewed by the REST community.  So
> for
> > example a context can be provided to self document the terms (something
> I've
> > almost completed) and would allow standardization of block explorer and
> > bitcoind outputs.  Right now every explorer seems to have a different
> JSON
> > output.
>
> It's not too late, it's not been merged yet.
>
> Though a W3C standard takes a long time to pan out, and it may be more
> useful to have this available rather than wait for the API to be
> standardized (which means this will need to be postponed at least one
> version). As you say, a new interface be added later under another
> URI.
>

Agree.  I think these changes are great for 0.10.


>
> Note that we're only interested in exposing read-only, public data
> which is already available in Bitcoin Core's internals.
> We're not aiming to add a fully-fledged block explorer with (say)
> address indexes. Although that could be part of the standard if it
> allows implementations to support just a subset.
>

Got it thanks.


>
> Anyhow - please coordinate this with Jeff Garzik, it's better to work
> together here.
>

Will do.  Work in this area is ongoing, both in terms of
coding/patches/testing and documentation.

Do you think it would a reasonable idea to put down some thoughts and
proposals in a BIP?


>
> Wladimir
>