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
Services, Twitter Inc.

On Oct 4, 1:29 am, Jesse Stay <> 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

Reply via email to