Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mashing Up Multiple Web Services

Posted by Soulskill on from the one-size-bits-fits-all dept.

GMGruman writes "Ted Samson reports on a new Web application dubbed ifttt.com that mashes up all those Web services we routinely use. Today's Web is brimming with a staggering number of services where users can speak their mind (Twitter), grab vital information (any news or blog source), store important files (Dropbox or Box.net), collaborate with peers (Facebook or Google+), and much more. The dream has long been to devise ways to get these often disparate and siloed services to interact with one another, creating something greater than the sum of its parts. It serves as a measure of how far we've come from the early days of specialized, single-purpose mashups, or more complicated SOAs where services were cobbled together with complex tools and the coding equivalent of duct tape."

14 of 59 comments (clear)

  1. An decent start, but needs more by suso · · Score: 2

    Neat idea and I like the interface, but obviously they need conditionals. You can't just say Every tweet I make also call this number, you should be able to do something like every time I post about X then call this phone number and say Y that includes this part of X. If this catches on, Google will be kicking themselves that they don't have an API for G+ with write access yet.

    1. Re:An decent start, but needs more by derGoldstein · · Score: 3, Interesting

      For this to be useful, you're gonna need counters, nested conditions, decision trees, etc.. Most people will only use part of them, or even just the one "if/then" functionality, but there's an opportunity to cater to "power users" by offering a more robust system.

      That said, I think this thing is proof of how neurotic all of these "social services" have become. If we're setting up triggering mechanisms to make the multiple services work together, something's gone wrong with either the way we live, or how much bureaucracy we're willing to put up with. Are we really heading in a direction where we have to *program* how we communicate with friends? Isn't that what these services are supposed to *solve*?

      --
      Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
    2. Re:An decent start, but needs more by c0lo · · Score: 2

      Are we really heading in a direction where we have to *program* how we communicate with friends? Isn't that what these services are supposed to *solve*?

      No, we are heading in a direction where no only FB, G+ and others will know more or less complete "fragments" of our identities, but there will be an entity (ifttt.com) that will know about all of them in the same time.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  2. Quit calling web applications web services. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's confusing. I assumed it was a web service that somehow aggregated the interfaces of all these other web services. My immediate response was "Well, that's pointless. Why wouldn't I do that in my own code - that's what a web service is for.".

    Only to go on and read that it's not a web service.

    1. Re:Quit calling web applications web services. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 2

      Because "web service" is a separate term of art. It's like a news article saying a "fully automatic rifle" was used in a shooting, when it was a semi-automatic rifle. Reporter could say "Well, you pull the trigger 3 times and 3 bullets come out, that's fully automatic!". No, it isn't.

    2. Re:Quit calling web applications web services. by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's a service which is offered over the web. Isn't that the very definition of a web service? However, what this is not is a mashup. It doesn't recombine content, but offers functionality across services.

      No. There are several (not necessarily equivalent) definitions of what a web service is, but they have, at their core, define a web service as a function or functionality that one can invoke programmatically (and that was designed with this in mind) over an IP-based protocol in general, and over HTTP in particular, either way exploiting, relying and/or being affected by the characteristics, positive and negative, of the so-called Internet architecture.

      What it is being reported here is a web-based application (not a web service) that aggregates information from other web-based applications using web services provided by the later. So RightSaidFred99 is pretty much correct in voicing his objection for calling a web application a web service.

      One can understand a non-tech reporter making such a confusion. But, in a supposedly tech-savvy site such as slashdot, I can only think what the fuck? We are not in the eras that preceded the widespread adoption of Internet technology, and it's not like web services are something new either.

    3. Re:Quit calling web applications web services. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

      And what does the summary say?

      "Ted Samson reports on a new Web application dubbed ifttt.com that mashes up all those Web services we routinely use.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  3. Um. Hooray? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, if I understand this correctly, I get the exciting chance to hand login credentials to a variety those accounts I deem important to some nascent .bomb outfit, whose TOS specifically says that it can change at any time, my responsibility to check(is there a trigger for that, by any chance?), and which currently doesn't make any mention of limitations on what they can do with those credentials(never mind what their eventual aquirerer might do...); but which is quite clear on just how hard I indemnify and hold them harmless pretty much no matter what?

    Sounds Awesome!

    1. Re:Um. Hooray? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Haven't looked through all the channels, but at least the services that support it (Facebook, Google stuff) are using OAuth so you can authorize a third party to perform actions or get data from your account in a way that can be revoked at any time without giving them your credentials.

    2. Re:Um. Hooray? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

      So, if I understand this correctly, I get the exciting chance to hand login credentials to a variety those accounts I deem important to some nascent .bomb outfit, whose TOS specifically says that it can change at any time, my responsibility to check(is there a trigger for that, by any chance?), and which currently doesn't make any mention of limitations on what they can do with those credentials(never mind what their eventual aquirerer might do...); but which is quite clear on just how hard I indemnify and hold them harmless pretty much no matter what?

      Sounds Awesome!

      It's still too limited. It doesn't support your bank account yet. Just having unfortunate automatic twitters in your name is not sufficient. Automatic money movement is much more interesting. Especially when combined with the possibility to select from existing rules ... this could result in some very interesting money flows. :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  4. A great idea! by proverbialcow · · Score: 2

    If we could aggregate these services into a single site, that site could become a web 'portal' where you could accomplish some of your most routine web tasks. If you could get a service provider to create their own 'portal' that comes free with their internet access, that would be even better. Of course, you'd want to distribute sample copies to as many people as possible - preferably by sending them CDs several times a week. Maybe then you could truly get all of America online.

    --
    The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
  5. we round them all up .. by OzPeter · · Score: 2

    so it makes it easier to get rid of them all at once?

    Who is this "we" that the TFS mentions?? .. now git off my lawn.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:we round them all up .. by drb226 · · Score: 2

      Who is this "we" that the TFS mentions?? .. now git off my lawn.

      We == all teh hipstas?

  6. BTDT...stop with the "new" already. by geekmux · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Ted Samson reports on a new Web application..."

    Ah, "new"? Where the hell has he been the last 5 years? Under a rock?

    Facebook "Like" buttons popping up everywhere, Google map links embedded into every web interface and email program, practically Internet-wide single-sign-on capability with far too many websites acting as proxy authenticators to all of the major accounts (Google, Twitter, Facebook, Linkedin, etc.)

    Tweetdeck, Trillion, Adium...the list goes on and on. There's nothing "new" about yet another program to "mash-up" the 17 accounts that everyone seems to have in yet another effort to create a single visual aggregator of endless streams of crap that you probably would have never had a reason to know your 4,471th "friend" said or did in the first place, yet somehow feel the undying pressure to get plugged in and monitor such nonsense with an almost childish infatuation to refresh it all every 14 seconds.