[OSM-dev] The future of Potlatch

Tom Hughes tom at compton.nu
Fri May 2 00:24:35 BST 2008

In message <16e8cf860805011406t29e3d382ke4b18ecf9fe92a4a at mail.gmail.com>
          "Tom Carden" <tom at tom-carden.co.uk> wrote:

> I think the fact that it has its own API is a much bigger concern than
> it being written in AS 1.0 is.  If Potlatch was using the main API,
> development of API-backed features in Potlatch could be shared by
> other editors too.  Any tests written for the API would help Potlatch.
>  Any changes to the schema would only have to happen once. etc. etc.

I think most of us (with the possible exception of Richard) would
agree here.

Well actually I don't mind the existence of the AMF API as such so
long as it is just concerned with decoding the RPC calls and encoding
the results, and it uses the rails object model to do all the work
so that important code is shared with the XML API.

We have in fact started moving towards that goal with some work
that Steve did on some of the AMF calls.

The problem is that it turned out that, even after I had optimised
the code, it is significantly slower to go through the rails object
model that to make direct SQL queries.

Of course that probably affects the main API as well, it's just that
it doesn't appear as a regression in that case in the way that it
does with the AMF API.

I think even Richard wouldn't mind too much making the AMF API use
the rails object model if it wasn't for the performance issues.


Tom Hughes (tom at compton.nu)

More information about the dev mailing list