Comment 3 for bug 1408353

Michael: I see that my merge proposal was rejected for being old. (Fine, it was also missing a couple of tests, but it wasn't looked at until ten months after it was proposed, and then was rejected for being old.) You see my concern about "every time my third-party app wants to query the data in a different way there'll be a long cycle time before Canonical provides it, and constant ongoing work for Canonical engineers"? When you say "it'd be slightly more difficult to get things you need landed"... if "slightly more difficult" means "wait nearly a year for a review" then I'd call that a little more than slightly. This is why I suggest that a much better way here would be to expose the back end and allow people to get at the data, at which point we can do what we want with it, rather than lobbying for an API change which will take a very long time to happen.