![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/173371753ea2206b9934a9be1bdce423.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Feb 01, 2015, at 11:54 AM, Andrew Stuart wrote:
I’m going to store as string representation of the integer as I don’t want to be dealing with databases or anything else that makes a distinction between different types and lengths of integer.
That makes sense to me. Since Aurelien was okay with the status quo, I never did make the change described in that archive message.
Ideally the identifier would match the core internal identifier which is UUID but since userid-as-UUID is not seen from the REST API side of things then I’ll act like that concept does not exist and hope I’m not making things more confused around user id.
Yep, for now I think we'll keep the int-as-user-id concept, and it will be converted internally to a UUID. If/when we change that I'll have to keep backward compatibility with that API anyway.
Cheers, -Barry