issue_comments: 706736541
This data as json
| html_url | issue_url | id | node_id | user | created_at | updated_at | author_association | body | reactions | issue | performed_via_github_app |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/782#issuecomment-706736541 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/782 | 706736541 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDcwNjczNjU0MQ== | 9599 | 2020-10-11T17:12:27Z | 2020-10-11T17:12:27Z | OWNER | The core issue that I keep reconsidering is whether the default `.json` representation should be an object or a list. Arguments in favour of a list: - It's what I always want. Almost all of the code that I've written against the API myself uses `?_shape=array`. - It's really easy to use. You can pipe it to e.g. `sqlite-utils insert`, you can load it into JavaScript without thinking about it. Arguments against: - Nowhere to put pagination or total counts. I added pagination to the `link:` HTTP header in #1014 (inspired by the WordPress and GitHub APIs) but I haven't solved for total count, and there's other stuff that's useful like `"truncated": true` to indicate that more than 1000 results were returned and they were truncated. - An array is inherently non-extensible: if the root item is an object it's easy to add new features to it in a backwards-compatible way in the future. An array is a fixed format. But maybe that last point is a positive? It ensures the default `.json` format remains completely predictable forever. If `.json` DID default to an array of objects, the `?_shape=` argument could still be used to get back alternative formats. Maybe `.json?_extra=total` changes the shape of that default to be this instead: ```json { "rows": [{"id": 1}, {"id": 2}], "total": 104 } ``` The thing I care about most though is `next_url`. That could be provided like so: `.json?_extra=total&_extra=next` - alternative syntax `.json?_extra=total,next`: ```json { "rows": [{"id": 1}, {"id": 2}], "total": 104, "next": "2", "next_url": "/db/table.json?_extra=total&_extra=next&_next=2" } ``` This is feeling a bit verbose for a common combination though. | {"total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0} | 627794879 |