 | | Re: POST vs. GET (was: Re: IGNORE: yet another test message)
|
|
(...) Yeah -- what Dan said. I don't mean to send the entire _history_ with all the timestamps, but rather to send the raw data up to that point -- all the raw values -- (which is almost like the whole history) -- so that the client can calculate a (...) (25 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: POST vs. GET (was: Re: IGNORE: yet another test message)
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote: [snip long good explanation] (...) nod, exactly what I meant. I was afraid you meant something like: lugnet.foo.bad:5321 80 lugnet.foo.bad:5321 40 lugnet.foo.bad:5321 70 lugnet.foo.bad:5321 50 lugnet.foo.bad:5321 -80 (a rating of (...) (25 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: POST vs. GET (was: Re: IGNORE: yet another test message)
|
|
(...) Uh oh; now I'm confused again. I thought articles were rated, not groups. Assuming that the above represent articles ("lugnet.foo.bar" = one post in lugnet.foo?), then the rating shown on the web page would be: lugnet.foo.bar 64 lugnet.bar.baz (...) (25 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: POST vs. GET (was: Re: IGNORE: yet another test message)
|
|
(...) No, I wouldn't be that cruel! :) :) (...) Absolutely, it can, yes. :) Any integer in the range 0 to 100 inclusive. The histogram display on the website snaps values to the nearest 10-stop. (...) Cool! --Todd (25 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: POST vs. GET (was: Re: IGNORE: yet another test message)
|
|
(...) No, that's correct. Articles are, groups aren't. But a client could, if it wanted to, start messages off with any default number (not necessarily 50) based on which group(s) the article appears in. (...) The server does store the new composite (...) (25 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: POST vs. GET (was: Re: IGNORE: yet another test message)
|
|
(...) I think that's a typo... should be "lugnet.foo.bar:666 40 60 70 70 80" :) (...) well the way I see it (and Todd might prove me wrong) is that this way the client has the freedom to do whatever it wants with the ratings... such as have a (...) (25 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: POST vs. GET (was: Re: IGNORE: yet another test message)
|
|
(...) The downside, as I see it :) is that if the client just gets back one number per article somehow, it's an afternoon/evening hack to add this to a newsreader (like slrn) which already has GroupLens support. If the client has to actually process (...) (25 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: POST vs. GET (was: Re: IGNORE: yet another test message)
|
|
(...) "Not as useful" doesn't mean "not exactly what Matthew wants". *grin* (25 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: POST vs. GET (was: Re: IGNORE: yet another test message)
|
|
(...) Oh! YES! Thank you. That exactly. (...) Yop! --Todd (25 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: POST vs. GET (was: Re: IGNORE: yet another test message)
|
|
(...) Well, maybe we can do both. Depends on the bandwidth and frequency of calls. --Todd (25 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: POST vs. GET (was: Re: IGNORE: yet another test message)
|
|
(...) Sorry, yah, I meant "not as maximally useful." --Todd (25 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: POST vs. GET (was: Re: IGNORE: yet another test message)
|
|
(...) Well, I think it'd happen whenever slrn grabs headers for a newsgroup. That too much? (That would be in the case where there were a cgi which would take a list of articles [1] and return all values somehow. If it were a one request, one result (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
