--- In yws-flickr%40yahoogroups.com">yws-flickr
yahoogroups.com, "Sam Judson" <sam...> wrote:
>
> What I think it boils down to here is you're asking "Do Flickr mind
if I put
> my API Key in my javascript so anyone who really wanted to could
nick it".
>
> The answer is that they've never complained so far.
>;
> I doubt you'll get anyone to say "Yes, go ahead, do it with our
blessing,
> you'll never have a problem", nor will they tell you you can't.
>
> I'd use a separate API key for your javascript stuff so that if it
did get
> suspended you could easily get a new one and not kill other
applications
>; that you write.
>
> On 17/10/2007, myflickrcs <myflickrcs...> wrote:
> >
>; > --- In yws-flickr%40yahoogroups.com">yws-flickryahoogroups.com <yws-flickr%
40yahoogroups.com>, Sybren
> > Stüvel <sybren> wrote:
> > >
>; > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 09:07:27PM -0000, myflickrcs wrote:
> > > > Again I'm not talking about sharing the secret key, just
using it in
> > > > javascript that someone could readily browse.
> > >
>; > > Placing a key in JavaScript *is* sharing it. Anything you send
to the
> > > client is shared with that client.
> > >
>; > > Sybren
> > >
>; >
>; > Thanks for the reply. I worded this portion of my question poorly.
> > Let me clairify.
> >
>; > I would only be putting the API_KEY in the javascript that could
be
> > viewed easily if you were to browse the source. I would not be
sharing
> > the secret key as what I am attempting to do would only be
browsing
> > public photosets.
> >
>; >
> >
>;
The answer I was suspecting. Sam, thanks for the repley and thanks
for your work on the Flickr.Net API.
