<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Facebook on Bruno Pedro</title><link>https://brunopedro.com/tags/facebook/</link><description>Recent content in Facebook on Bruno Pedro</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2018 14:19:25 +0200</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://brunopedro.com/tags/facebook/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Should twitter have its own data storage?</title><link>https://brunopedro.com/2009/04/21/should-twitter-have-its-own-data-storage/</link><pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:34:56 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://brunopedro.com/2009/04/21/should-twitter-have-its-own-data-storage/</guid><description>&lt;p>Now that twitter &lt;a href="http://oauth.net/" title="OAuth">OAuth&lt;/a> &lt;a href="http://apiwiki.twitter.com/OAuth-FAQ">feature&lt;/a> is in public beta, some people argue that twitter should also provide a data storage facility through their &lt;a href="http://apiwiki.twitter.com/">API&lt;/a>. This would allow developers to add payloads to different twitter objects but would create another &lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_silo">information silo&lt;/a>, instead of leveraging existing data storage providers.&lt;/p>
&lt;p>I agree with Kevin Marks when &lt;a href="http://www.scripting.com/stories/2009/04/20/twitterAndOauthInteresting.html#comment-8462416">he asks&lt;/a> &amp;ldquo;Why should the storage and the event stream come from the same provider?&amp;rdquo;.&lt;/p>
&lt;p>Quoting Dave Winer&amp;rsquo;s article &amp;ldquo;&lt;a href="http://www.scripting.com/stories/2009/04/20/twitterAndOauthInteresting.html#disqus_thread">Twitter and OAuth, interesting brew&lt;/a>&amp;rdquo;:&lt;/p></description></item></channel></rss>