Hi Jeff, >your intuition is very good
Don't all coders think alike :) I was just working a test case that took over 10-15 minutes to appear.. The strange thing is that it appeared immediately when I ran it via the AJAX playground (coincidence?). http://code.google.com/apis/ajax/playground/#historical_entries I don't have any specific URL cases because I run it on all sorts of random feeds. What's strange is I've tried the feedurl?v=x hack and the delay (for a new feed) isn't that long. I may be looking for a new solution anyway .. an ancient request makes it impossible to process modern feed/post data. http://code.google.com/p/google-ajax-apis/issues/detail?id=88 Thanks again for your help Chris On Jan 22, 1:08 pm, "Jeff S (Google)" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Chris, > > How long is the update delay that you are seeing? Your intuition is > very good, when we have cached data but it is old we will in some > cases return the cached data so that the response is timely and also > kick off a background request to update the cache. For this reason you > might not see new content for a few seconds depending on how long it > takes to fetch and process the feed from the content's server. If you > could send me the URL for this feed I'd be happy take a closer look. > > Also, in regards to your last question, the current maximum for > historical entries is 250. > > Thank you, > > Jeff > > On Jan 22, 7:54 am, SV Billabong <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Jeff, > > > I'm still having delays on feed updates.. > > > I usually have to load a feed a couple of times before it "refreshes" > > with the latest content. > > > The feedfetcher doesn't seem to poll for new data.. it's as if the API > > call triggers the update check (but returns cached data) which doesn't > > appear until the page is reloaded (later). > > > On Jan 7, 9:15 pm, SV Billabong <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Thanks Jeff, > > > > Is it possible to get more than 250 entries? > > > > On Jan 4, 4:40 pm, "Jeff S (Google)" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Chris, > > > > > The feeds system does take into account the caching information > > > > provided in the HTTP headers for your RSS/Atom feed. So if for example > > > > there is a blog post which the headers say, for example, can be cached > > > > for a couple of months, then they may not be updated before then, so > > > > recent changes might not be picked up. Currently the server doesn't > > > > pass along any cache-control headers which the client might send, > > > > which means there isn't a mechanism for the client to invalidate the > > > > cache. You may have to wait for the item to outlive the cache time > > > > before it would be refetched. If you are concerned about edits not > > > > showing up, perhaps you could set a shorter cache time on more > > > > frequently updated items and use longer cache settings for posts which > > > > are going to be updated less often. > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > Jeff > > > > > On Jan 4, 8:47 am, SV Billabong <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks Jeremy.. > > > > > > Can someone from Google clarify? I can't base a project around "should > > > > > (theoretically)"!! > > > > > > Also is there anyway to update the cache (for changed entries)? An > > > > > automatic check would be great but a force update mode would work too. > > > > > > An example would be a wordpress blog with typically 10 entries in the > > > > > feed. The user can change the feed length temporarily, would the new > > > > > updated entries be re-cached or would the old content remain? > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > On Dec 28 2009, 9:34 am, Jeremy Geerdes <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > The AJAX Feeds API depends on the same FeedFetcher bot which caches > > > > > > > > > > > > feeds for Google Reader. So if you load something in Reader, it > > > > > > should > > > > > > (theoretically) be cached in the Feeds API. > > > > > > > Jeremy R. Geerdes > > > > > > Effective website design & development > > > > > > Des Moines, IA > > > > > > > For more information or a project > > > > > > quote:http://jgeerdes.home.mchsi.comhttp://jgeerdes.blogspot.comhttp://jgee... > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > Unless otherwise noted, any price quotes contained within this > > > > > > communication are given in US dollars. > > > > > > > If you're in the Des Moines, IA, area, check out Debra Heights > > > > > > Wesleyan Church! > > > > > > > And check out my blog, Adventures in Web Development, > > > > > > athttp://jgeerdes.blogspot.com > > > > > > ! > > > > > > > On Dec 28, 2009, at 8:32 AM, SV Billabong wrote: > > > > > > > > Does Google have a single feed database or is the AJAX feed > > > > > > > controlled > > > > > > > separately? > > > > > > > > I'm interested in historical entries and wondering if loading the > > > > > > > feed > > > > > > > in Google Reader also "stores" these historical entries for the > > > > > > > AJAX > > > > > > > feed extraction. > > > > > > > > Will the feed be constantly updated (daily?) or does a AJAX feed > > > > > > > based > > > > > > > utility need to be run in order to trigger a fetch in order to > > > > > > > store > > > > > > > entries? > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > On Dec 19, 9:52 am, SV Billabong <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > >> Thanks Jeff.. > > > > > > > >> Can you let us know here when it rolls out? > > > > > > > >> On Dec 18, 1:09 pm, "Jeff S (Google)" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > >>> Yes during debugging I was able to update the two feeds that > > > > > > >>> were > > > > > > >>> reported in this thread. A more permanent solution should be > > > > > > >>> rolled > > > > > > >>> out in our system shortly. > > > > > > > >>> Happy coding, > > > > > > > >>> Jeff > > > > > > > >>> On Dec 17, 5:23 pm, braiiins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > >>>> Not sure if you found the problem, but it's updated! Thanks! > > > > > > > >>>> On Dec 16, 12:18 pm, "Jeff S (Google)" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > >>>>> Yes this does seem like a bug and it is proving difficult to > > > > > > >>>>> track > > > > > > >>>>> down. We've been working on this and I'll keep this thread > > > > > > >>>>> updated > > > > > > >>>>> with progress. Apologies for the delay! > > > > > > > >>>>> Thank you, > > > > > > > >>>>> Jeff > > > > > > > >>>>> On Dec 14, 5:55 pm, braiiins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > >>>>>> Any thoughts on my problem? It'll be 3 weeks tomorrow and it > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> still > > > > > > >>>>>> won't update. I do have over 1000 feed readers, so it's not > > > > > > >>>>>> that it's > > > > > > >>>>>> not viewed enough. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the > > > > > > > Google > > > > > > > Groups "Google AJAX APIs" group. > > > > > > > To post to this group, send email to > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > For more options, visit this group > > > > > > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/google-ajax-search-api?hl=en > > > > > > > . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google AJAX APIs" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-ajax-search-api?hl=en.
