Is this duplicating the efforts already underway on the Salsa API module? If so, it would save future confusion to collaborate with the author of that module. If it is actually different, documenting that on the module description page would help people discern which module they were looking for.

Comments

jcnventura’s picture

jcnventura
Primary language English
commented
Status: Needs review » Fixed

It's not simply an API, although it also provides API functions that are not as complex as the ones in the other module.

Except for that API which was created for internal use, the main feature that this module currently provides to the site developer is a block that can be used by a user to register itself in Salsa's supporter table.

In the future, the plan is to integrate the individual user profile more with the information stored in DIA, so that it is possible to list the groups to which a user belongs in DIA, etc.

PS: Sorry for the long delay in answering you.

Status: Fixed » Closed (fixed)

Automatically closed -- issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.

jmcclelland’s picture

jmcclelland commented
Version: » 6.x-1.x-dev

I appreciate the fact that you started this module - and fully understand and agree with the reason you decided not to build on the salsa_api module.

It's for the same reasons that I've decided to work on my CiviCRM/Salsa module using your API functions rather than the salsa_api module functions.

However, in the best possible world, perhaps you could take over the salsa_api module, move your api calls into that module (and have salsa depend on salsa_api). I see that an offer to take it over has been made. I'm not sure if a formal process has begun or not.

I'm making this suggestion because I (and a few others seem to be interested in building off a stable and well written API, but don't necessarily want or need to pull the other functionality provided by the salsa module.

Hope this helps! I really appreciate your hard work on this module.

jamie