Subject:
|
Re: POST vs. GET (was: Re: IGNORE: yet another test message)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Apr 2000 03:41:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
959 times
|
| |
|
|
Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Oh! I am thinking of "rating" as the number displayed with a message on the
> web site. Are you saying that you'd spit out the entire rating history of
> the message, for the client to do something with? Hmmm.....
I guess the client doesn't really care about the history of the message
rating, but that would be the best way to adjust the clients view of
messages rating... though I assume the client will be able to query the
ratings of a message independently... so if you already know of a
message's rating you could ask for an update, if you don't, you can ask
for the complete picture.
Another thought though, instead of giving the "rating log" from a
timestamp, give us the _full_ rating of messages that changed since a
timestamp. It'll make it simpler to deal with things like "UnRate" and
will also cut down on the amt of data sent...
Thoughts?
:)
Dan
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
