just a comment on the side:...is it an option to provide a powerful and scalable - but generic getMessages()-function with a bunch of parameters (tags/text/author...date...) and to let the collection e.g. by tags be gone by the requestor?
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Ethan Jewett <[email protected]> wrote: > Actually, having separate streams for each tag is what I'm suggesting, > I'm just trying to determine when best to create them. If a client > requests all the streams, they will all be created. Should we talk > about not streaming individual tags at all? Maybe put a limit on the > number of streams a client can have open? I'm not sure what the > performance impact will look like. > > Also, I need to amend the original email. I think that because we are > using Lift Sessions, we will be killing off the session and the > streams attached to it after a period of time. So I think option 2 and > option 4 are the same or very similar. > > Ethan > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Richard Hirsch <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Yes it sounds reasonable. I don't think it makes much sense to have > > separate streams for each tag, etc... > > > > I agree option 2 is the best choice. > > > > D. > > > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:29 AM, Ethan Jewett <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> All, > >> > >> In the cwiki, we've documented 5 parts of the API we would like to > >> stream. They are briefly: user timeline, tags, tracks, conversations, > >> and pools (and possibly the public timeline) > >> > >> Of these, one has been implemented: user timeline > >> > >> Today I've been able to take some time to start digging into what > >> needs to be done to implement the rest of the streaming interfaces. > >> The way the user timeline streaming interface is implemented in the > >> old and new APIs is the same (because I just copied and slightly > >> modified the code). The basic idea is that when a session is created, > >> the streaming API starts "listening" for new messages. When the user > >> makes a request to the streaming interface for new messages, all the > >> messages that have built up are delivered. > >> > >> This approach poses some significant problems for other types of > >> streams. For example, if we were going to stream tags in this manner, > >> we would end up creating a listener for every single active tag in the > >> system at the time the user initiates a session. We would also have > >> the dilemma of creating listeners for new tags as the tags are created > >> in the middle of a session. > >> > >> As such, I'm thinking of implementing the other streaming interfaces > >> differently. Instead of creating listeners when the session is > >> initiated, I'll create them when the first streaming request for a > >> tag, pool, track, or conversation comes in. These listeners would then > >> live on for the rest of the session. This is, I think the best of > >> several options. > >> > >> To summarize the options available: > >> > >> 1. Create listeners for everything at the beginning of the session - > >> not efficient, suffers from difficulties with new tags, pools, etc. > >> created during the session > >> > >> 2. Create listeners for streams as the user requests them and have > >> these listeners live on for the rest of the session > >> > >> 3. Create disposable listeners for each streaming/long-polling request > >> that are destroyed once the request is answered - this is problematic > >> because messages that occur between requests will be missed > >> > >> 4. Variation of option 2 and 3: Create listeners for streams as the > >> user requests them and have these listeners life on for the rest of > >> the session or a specific period of time, whichever comes first (so > >> the user would have to make occasional requests to ensure the > >> continuity of the message stream) - I think this is over-complicated > >> and potentially confusing to developers, but could be a good option if > >> we run into performance problems with option 2 > >> > >> > >> What we'll be left with is that the user timeline will use option 1 > >> and the other streams will use option 2. The user timeline might > >> switch to option 2 at some point in the future. > >> > >> And that was all a very long way of saying, does that sound reasonable > >> to everyone? > >> > >> Ethan > >> > > > -- --- Daniel Koller Jahnstrasse 20 80469 München * [email protected]
