Subject:
|
Re: POST vs. GET (was: Re: IGNORE: yet another test message)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Apr 2000 03:07:45 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
4358 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Miller writes:
> It'd definitely be cool to be able to get ranges all at once, but why
> timestamp rather than message number?
Timestamp because the server would need to know at what time the client last
asked for the ratings. Changes since a given message number isn't sufficient
because it provides too little information -- it would end up having to report
back more and more each time. You might have 2,000 messages in your reader
and it should be very low-bandwidth to receive an update on a message 3 days
old, if someone goes back and rates it. Your client shouldn't have to endure
(neither should the server) sending a complete copy of the ratings for the
past 2000 messages -- only the ones which have changed since the last time the
client asked. Thus, perhaps message number plus timestamp, but not message
number without timestamp.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
29 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
