Skip to main content

How To Fail At Upload APIs

Youtube, what the hell is up with your upload APIs? Here we are, hacking along and being all "Hey, we got accounts syncing and thumbnails popping up and videos getting attached to blog posts and its nifty-pie, oh yeah." when we make the move to be even more web 2.0y and add full authentication with youtube accounts and integrate the full upload cycle into the media selection. We take some little video upload tests and we're happy about that. Oh, that was a nice milestone to hit in FogBugz, I tell you what.

The week passes and suddenly I'm asked why all the video uploads keep failing. All the usual things are checked, but the upload tokens validate and the headers are correct. All our tests are within the upload limits, too. These aren't friendly "Hey, I really hate to tell you this, but the video you just uploaded didn't go so well. Can you try it again in a bit? Thanks"-errors, either. These are "Fuck off. I just reset your HTTP connection, bitch"-errors. Other times, we get 502 Bad Gateway from Youtube's servers and that isn't the kind of nice error you expect from a professional service like that. With the errors happening on the client browser, I'm left with nothing to do by way of responding nicely. Our own machines never get a single byte from Youtube on the matter, much less the nicely formatted response-requests they promise to use to tell us all about the sucess or failure of the uploads we set our users up with.

What gives with the weird error and what gives with they not being nicer about it?

Through support forums our problem is matched up not with some obscure thing, but to many, many posts. It seems like everyone and their dog gets reset connections and 502 errors during uploads. At this point, I'm absolutely questioning that Youtube was ready to release this part of the API when they did, because it is obviously not mature. Now, I happen to know it on good authority that some people do upload videos to Youtube, from time to time. You know, with that little uploader they wrote called The Youtube Site Itself. So, the theories I have is that they either aren't eating their own dogfood or their own uploader is doing smart-ish upload resuming when their internal upload API chokes on them constantly. In the end, I have to ask, "What gives?"

Apparently, according to support responses and our own tests, if you upload to uploads2.gdata.youtube.com instead of uploads.gdata.youtube.com, it works fine. This is their "new upload system", but what does that mean? The API is completely identical, so does "new upload system" mean a new specific set of boxes that handle uploads? Specific boxes doesn't seem very cloud-like for Google, don't you agree? Well, i

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Respect and Code Reviews

Code Reviews in a development team only function best, or possible at all, when everyone approaches them with respect. That’s something I’ve usually taken for granted because I’ve had the opportunity to work with amazing developers who shine not just in their technical skills but in their interpersonal skills on a team. That isn’t always the case, so I’m going to put into words something that often exists just in assumptions.
You have to respect your code. This is first only because the nature and intent of code reviews are to safeguard the quality of your code, so even having code reviews demonstrates a baseline of respect for that code. But, maybe not everyone on the team has the same level of respect or entered a team with existing review traditions that they aren’t acquainted with.
There can be culture shock when you enter a team that’s really heavy on code reviews, but also if you enter a team or interact with a colleague who doesn’t share that level of respect for the process or…

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this.


CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer. 
One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC?

It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on. The only re…

How To Care If BSD, MIT, or GPL Licenses Are Used

The two recent posts about some individuals' choice of GPL versus others' preference for BSD and MIT style licensing has caused a lot of debate and response. I've seen everything as an interesting combination of very important topics being taken far too seriously and far too personally. All involved need to take a few steps back.

For the uninitiated and as a clarifier for the initiated, we're dealing with (basically) three categories of licensing when someone releases software (and/or its code):
Closed Source. Easiest to explain, because you just get nothing.GPL. If you get the software, you get the source code, you get to change it, and anything you combine it with must be under the same terms.MIT and BSD. If you get the software, you might get the source code, you get to change it, and you have no obligations about anything else you combine it with.The situation gets stickier when we look at those combinations and the transitions between them.

Use GPL code with Closed S…