4 ms·

The API is Dead. Long Live the Protocol.

44 points by imaginator 16y ago

bergie 16y ago
One thing that I want from protocols is several reference implementations. And some of those libraries instead of full applications. But indeed, XMPP (like BuddyCloud here uses) sounds like a good idea for a social aggregation protocol.
api 16y ago
"X is dead" is a sure-fire indicator of vapidity.
- devtesla 16y ago
  Well, I thought the same thing. But he's totally right, and buddycloud is awesome.
- msie 16y ago
  Now I'd like to see a response from 'protocol'!
shantanubala 16y ago
I'm not sure. Sometimes, protocols just simply do not evolve fast enough to support really innovative user behavior. For example, IMAP is a great email protocol, but GMail demonstrated a very long time ago that labels are a lot more powerful than folders (especially when you have a wide array of filters to choose from). An API that relies only on a single party (i.e. a company) makes it easier to evolve and provide better functionality while protocols are much more stagnant. Who knows what we'll expect of "social" protocols in 5-10 years? And a better question to ask may be: what's easier to upgrade to with mass adoption -- a new version of an API, or a new protocol?
- imaginator 16y ago
  (I'm the author of the post) I totally get where you are coming from. Of course protocols don't move fast. And sometimes we as implementors have to deal with people whose sole goal in life is upholding the sanctity of a protocol to the detriment of it's users. The real point that I was trying to get across is that when you build your house on somebody else's API you have no guarantee. With a protocol, that company can go away and others will fill it's place. In designing an open social network, buddycloud (the company) should be able to go bust, have our servers fail, be raided by the police... whatever. buddycloud (the open social network) and anyone who uses the protocol for their servers or clients can just keep on doing social-network-things.
  - zaidf 16y ago
    Most API-related problems are business related, not technical. Twitter could decide to use a protocol but that does little to prevent it from pulling or limiting access via the protocol when it wants and as it wants.
    - shantanubala 16y ago
      I think a good example is this: Google Talk may use the Jabber protocol, but most users don't care or know. The protocol itself isn't what matters -- Google's market proliferation matters more than the protocol. Similarly, even if Twitter or another company used open protocols, the alternatives would have to provide a better service on top of the open protocol to actually convert people or make the protocol a useful component of the service itself.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
  - shantanubala 16y ago
    Let me put it this way: after the massive MySpace exodus a while back, it was clear that people don't mind switching services as long as a large portion of their friends switch as well. I admire what you guys are doing a lot, but I'd love to see some way for buddycloud to evolve over time without causing version conflicts in the different clients and servers who may be running different versions. I guess my main point is that a single point of failure is also a single point of success since there are much fewer moving parts.
x5315 16y ago
'Last week Twitter told 3rd party client developers to essentially fuck-off.' Twitter's subtext being 'we don’t want your clients using our API and diluting our ability to advertise'. While neither of these statements are true, the concept of offering a protocol instead of an API is an interesting one. Though, the quote "open protocols are basically a gentleman's agreement" does indicate a similar issue to the one that's being projected onto Twitter. As shantanubala says, upgrading a protocol with mass adoption could be very difficult, this can then cause issues when you want to offer new services, or deprecate certain calls as they may be too complex at scale. Coordination definitely seems to be a huge issue when dealing with these open social networks. If a security issue is found in a server which can leak information, how long would it take for every server to be patched? I think a good example for this is to ask how many WordPress blogs get hacked because they're running on old copies of the code?

44 points by imaginator 16y ago

One thing that I want from protocols is several reference implementations. And some of those libraries instead of full applications. But indeed, XMPP (like BuddyCloud here uses) sounds like a good idea for a social aggregation protocol.

api 16y ago

"X is dead" is a sure-fire indicator of vapidity.

devtesla 16y ago
Well, I thought the same thing. But he's totally right, and buddycloud is awesome.
msie 16y ago
Now I'd like to see a response from 'protocol'!

shantanubala 16y ago

I'm not sure. Sometimes, protocols just simply do not evolve fast enough to support really innovative user behavior. For example, IMAP is a great email protocol, but GMail demonstrated a very long time ago that labels are a lot more powerful than folders (especially when you have a wide array of filters to choose from). An API that relies only on a single party (i.e. a company) makes it easier to evolve and provide better functionality while protocols are much more stagnant. Who knows what we'll expect of "social" protocols in 5-10 years? And a better question to ask may be: what's easier to upgrade to with mass adoption -- a new version of an API, or a new protocol?

imaginator 16y ago
(I'm the author of the post) I totally get where you are coming from. Of course protocols don't move fast. And sometimes we as implementors have to deal with people whose sole goal in life is upholding the sanctity of a protocol to the detriment of it's users. The real point that I was trying to get across is that when you build your house on somebody else's API you have no guarantee. With a protocol, that company can go away and others will fill it's place. In designing an open social network, buddycloud (the company) should be able to go bust, have our servers fail, be raided by the police... whatever. buddycloud (the open social network) and anyone who uses the protocol for their servers or clients can just keep on doing social-network-things.
- zaidf 16y ago
  Most API-related problems are business related, not technical. Twitter could decide to use a protocol but that does little to prevent it from pulling or limiting access via the protocol when it wants and as it wants.
  - shantanubala 16y ago
    I think a good example is this: Google Talk may use the Jabber protocol, but most users don't care or know. The protocol itself isn't what matters -- Google's market proliferation matters more than the protocol. Similarly, even if Twitter or another company used open protocols, the alternatives would have to provide a better service on top of the open protocol to actually convert people or make the protocol a useful component of the service itself.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- shantanubala 16y ago
  Let me put it this way: after the massive MySpace exodus a while back, it was clear that people don't mind switching services as long as a large portion of their friends switch as well. I admire what you guys are doing a lot, but I'd love to see some way for buddycloud to evolve over time without causing version conflicts in the different clients and servers who may be running different versions. I guess my main point is that a single point of failure is also a single point of success since there are much fewer moving parts.

x5315 16y ago

'Last week Twitter told 3rd party client developers to essentially fuck-off.' Twitter's subtext being 'we don’t want your clients using our API and diluting our ability to advertise'. While neither of these statements are true, the concept of offering a protocol instead of an API is an interesting one. Though, the quote "open protocols are basically a gentleman's agreement" does indicate a similar issue to the one that's being projected onto Twitter. As shantanubala says, upgrading a protocol with mass adoption could be very difficult, this can then cause issues when you want to offer new services, or deprecate certain calls as they may be too complex at scale. Coordination definitely seems to be a huge issue when dealing with these open social networks. If a security issue is found in a server which can leak information, how long would it take for every server to be patched? I think a good example for this is to ask how many WordPress blogs get hacked because they're running on old copies of the code?