Difference between revisions of "Talk:IGB Headers"
m (Protected "Talk:IGB Headers" [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) |
m (Protected "Talk:IGB Headers" [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
Those three would probably be considered redundant or possibly data duplication. The id's are easily obtainable based on the name. | Those three would probably be considered redundant or possibly data duplication. The id's are easily obtainable based on the name. | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Presuming one has a local database containing that information (unless I missed something). The headers expose ''name''-based data; the javascript methods use ''numeric id''-based data; you need external information to match them. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. [[Contributor name:Aramynthia|Aramynthia]] 14:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
== HTTP_SHIPID == | == HTTP_SHIPID == | ||
Latest revision as of 08:15, 27 December 2009
Contents
Use cases for HTTP_EVE_NEARESTLOCATION
I am currently using HTTP_EVE_NEARESTLOCATION in two cases with the current IGB.
1. A web based starbase refill tool. It shows the correct starbase in the web page by the use of the HTTP_EVE_NEARESTLOCATION header. Basicly it gets the moonName and thus the moonID out of it. With this information it is easy to select the correct starbase from the database.
2. The moon scan database. The webpage fills in the correct location information including the moon. To get the moonID i need the HTTP_EVE_NEARESTLOCATION header.
Please remain compatibility to old IGB applications and reenable the HTTP_EVE_NEARESTLOCATION header. I know there are no technical reasons for removing it.
I too would like to see this returned, I have a web app that tracks war tagets using this header allows the tracker a single click event to report the location of said war target.
Comments
It's a shame if we can't get HTTP_EVE_NEARESTLOCATION. I had an idea for a cool intel app that made use of this header. I hope it will be added one day. Also, could the documentation be updated with the method for how to request trust? - Nareg Maxence 20:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
HTTP_EVE_REGIONID, HTTP_EVE_CONSTELLATIONID, HTTP_EVE_SOLARSYSTEM
Those three would probably be considered redundant or possibly data duplication. The id's are easily obtainable based on the name.
- Presuming one has a local database containing that information (unless I missed something). The headers expose name-based data; the javascript methods use numeric id-based data; you need external information to match them. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Aramynthia 14:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
HTTP_SHIPID
HTTP_SHIPID should be properly named HTTP_EVE_SHIPID.
Some concerns however would be security. Giving away location on the pilot asking using the application has been around forever and so we don't bat an eye at it. Giving away the ship they are flying too? May be a little to much. I can see how it would be useful for FC's and figuring out fleet composition. A Fleet Management web tool could make great use of this.
Thoughts?
I think this would be a very useful feature to add, just make sure it is a trusted site.