Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Facebook photo.getAlbumImage() seems to have been messed up recently. Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Facebook photo.getAlbumImage() seems to have been messed up recently.

    photo.getAlbumImage().getSource() for a org.springframework.social.facebook.api.Photo used to give the album version of an image. i.e. ending in "_a.jpg". As of very recently in the BUILD_SNAPSHOT, it is returning the normal or getSourceImage() "_n.jpg" result.

    I expect that this code methodology for Photo is broken:

    this.sourceImage = images.get(i++);
    this.albumImage = images.get(i++);
    this.smallImage = images.get(i++);
    this.tinyImage = images.get(i++);

    given that there seem to be a bunch more images in the standard facebook photo result now:

    https://graph.facebook.com/98423808305

  • #2
    You're right...I'm already looking into this. Hoping to find a solution that isn't dependent on the ordering, probably by considering the width and height.

    Comment


    • #3
      Cool. Yeah, having been thinking about that list of images, it seems that targetting a width of 180 would be correct for the album size photo. Probably similar for others if required.

      Comment


      • #4
        It'd be nice if (1) Facebook updated their documentation to discuss these new image sizes and (2) would somehow describe each image in the returned JSON so that as a developer you could know what they're used for. Regarding this last point, I'm thinking that an array of images is horrible, but a hash of images, where the key were something meaningful like "thumbnail", would be more useful. It'd be a breaking change for them to do that, but given the current state of their API, it's a breaking change anytime they add a new image size.

        Comment


        • #5
          Yeah, that naked array of images looks pretty dumb.

          It doesn't sound like this was one of those changes that they *telegraphed* either.

          Comment


          • #6
            No, the only thing I ever saw mentioning the new image sizes wasn't even in the developer communications--it was in a more general Facebook user communication saying that they now proudly support print-quality images with a maximum resolution of 2048x2048. It may have been hidden among other items in their weekly "Operation Developer Love" blog entries, but I usually read those completely and don't recall seeing anything about it.

            Comment

            Working...
            X