[ckan-dev] ckan-dev Digest, Vol 51, Issue 11

Mon Jan 12 14:25:02 UTC 2015

Thank you, Stefan. You’ve been very helpful. 

> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 18:38:00 +0100
> From: Stefan Oderbolz <stefan.oderbolz at liip.ch>
> To: CKAN Development Discussions <ckan-dev at lists.okfn.org>
> Subject: Re: [ckan-dev] CKAN as an API Proxy
> Message-ID:
>        <CAARrFXdD7wEge0aofJfoDS0NwOH3WUGLFpMs7j1CKuCnuE57Ug at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> We will be posting publicly available data, but there are still a few
>> reasons we would like authentication. Mostly it?s a mechanism to support
>> communication with our API consumers (we?d collect contact information from
>> each consumer). Also we anticipate developers using the APIs in
>> applications and would like to be able to throttle requests if that became
>> necessary. Finally it does leave the door open to publishing more sensitive
>> data.
>> 
> 
> Ok.
> 
> 
>> If we decided to use CKAN, I guess we?ll need to build something?or more
>> likely modify an existing API proxy. If we did that do you think there?d be
>> any value from sticking with python? We are debating about python verses a
>> node solution.
> 
> 
> This very much depends on your developer(s). From a technical POV I don't
> think it matters. Of course with python you stay in one "world" and could
> potentially re-use some CKAN module/code. But if it's really about an API
> proxy, it shouldn't matter. I personally would be a lot faster with a node
> solution, but that's probably because I've already done similar things with
> it.
> 
> - Stefan
> 
> --
> Liip AG  // Limmatstrasse 183 //  CH-8005 Z?rich
> Tel +41 43 500 39 80 // GnuPG 0x7B588C67 // www.liip.ch
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/ckan-dev/attachments/20150109/01e8eb4f/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------