Curious -- why isn't the end of list indicator a reliable enough indication? "Iterate until" seems simple and reliable.
Can you request the denormalized count via the API before you begin? (Not familiar enough with the API, but the back-end store offers this for all sorts of purposes.) You'd have to apply some heuristic to allow for high-velocity sets. The last user in the list could be removed before iteration completes, setting up a race-condition that you'd have to allow for as well. -John Kalucki http://twitter.com/jkalucki Services, Twitter Inc. On Oct 4, 1:29 am, Jesse Stay <jesses...@gmail.com> wrote: > I was wondering if it might be possible to include, at least in the first > page, but if it's easier it could be on all pages, either a total expected > number of followers/friends, or a total expected number of returned pages > when the cursor parameter is provided for friends/ids and followers/ids? I'm > assuming since you're moving to the cursor-based approach you ought to be > able to accurately count this now since it's a snapshot of the data at that > time. > The reason I think that would be useful is that occasionally Twitter goes > down or introduces code that could break this. This would enable us to be > absolutely sure we've hit the end of the entire set. I guess another > approach could also be to just list the last expected cursor ID in the set > so we can be looking for that. > > Thanks, > > Jesse
