As I see it, replies also contain @screen_name in them. There's already an API structure to find these items, via statuses/mentions. Is there a reason why it's restricted to only the authenticating user and not open to access a screen_name / user_id parameter?
I can easily implement this if I keep everyone's authentication tokens and doing statuses/mentions and checking the in_reply_to_status_id. But it's not efficient and will have way too many hits against the twitter server. What do you guys think? Jason. Doug Williams wrote: > It requires a non trivial change to our architecture which means that > until the product at large (twitter.com <http://twitter.com>) adopts > the idea of conversation threads, the API will be unable to offer this > feature. > > > Doug Williams > Twitter API Support > http://twitter.com/dougw > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Zac Bowling <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > I see the bug was closed as "WONTFIX". Would it not be possible for > search to get a param for in_reply_to_status_id? > > I'm not working on any twitter projects anymore but it could lead to > some very interesting clients. > > > Zac > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Doug Williams <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Please see http://code.google.com/p/twitter-api/issues/detail?id=142 > > > > > > Doug Williams > > Twitter API Support > > http://twitter.com/dougw > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Jason Wong > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> > >> I'm trying to find a way to get all replies to a certain status. > >> > >> I was looking at the statuses/mentions function, but according > to the > >> documentation it only works with the authenticated user's > screen_name. > >> If I use statuses/user_timeline and get a status id that I know has > >> replies, is there a way for me to get it without searching the > >> public_timeline and checking the in_reply_to_status_id field > for that > >> status? It doesn't seem very efficient. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Jason. > > > > > >
