We just rolled out version 1.1 of the Stack Exchange API. To see what’s new, browse the revised documentation at:
api.stackoverflow.com/1.1/usage
Rebecca took an informal survey of the API developer community at Stack Apps, and determined that what everyone wanted most (beyond v2 of the API, yes, I know) was an improved application gallery. So we’ve made the default page on the site the application gallery, and spruced it up to be more visually friendly to average users.
This should make it easier for Stack Exchange users to find your app and start using it!
Do bear in mind that we heavily promote stackapps.com both with house ads, and in the footer of every Stack Exchange site we launch. So developers, we have your back. If you build on our API, we will continue to fully support you in every way we can!
So browse our new, improved app gallery and check out our latest API additions. Even better, start building your own totally awesome apps with the Stack Exchange API! To make sure your app looks its best in the stackapps.com app gallery, be sure to follow the directions on How to List Your Application, Library, or Wrapper Here.
Subscribe via RSS
8 Comments
Hooray! This is a much-anticipated event. I’m so glad to see the new changes to the front page of StackApps.
A special thank-you to all those behind the new API changes too.
Kevin posted some roadmap info and a few more details here
http://stackapps.com/questions/1999/announcing-api-version-1-1
as well
Would it be safe to use the creation date as a site id?
@Simon
No, use the site address with a lookup of aliases on misses. This is exactly how the Stack Exchange sites themselves work.
If you *really* need a number, synthesize one internally. Don’t rely on some random number not changing unless its documented (like question ids) to not change.
I just read that some 1.0 methods supported POST, but no longer do so in 1.1 (like http://stackauth.com/1.1/sites). So, when getting a 404, then check if you’re using the right method.
No methods in 1.0 or 1.1 (with one exception, and you actually have to petition us to be able to use that method) have ever supported POST.
If you were getting away with it in 1.0, you should stop doing so immediately.
@Kevin, I should have mentioned that I was not trying to say it should be supported, but just in case it matters: surely 1.0 supports POST for http://stackauth.com/1.0/sites – see http://web-sniffer.net/?url=http://stackauth.com/1.0/sites&http=1.1&type=POST
But, I’ve never used the API, so no worries for me ;-)
interestingly, while I consider myself a prominent SE API developer, I was not included in this ‘informal survey’ but am not surprised.