I haven't looked at all the parts of the system, so there's some
chance that I'm missing something.

The method returns the followers in the reverse chronological order of
edge creation. Cursor A will have the most recent 5,000 edges, by
creation time, B the next most recent 5,000, etc. The last cursor will
have the oldest edges.

Each cursor points to some arbitrary edge. If you go back and retrieve
cursor B, you should receive N edges created just before the edge-
pointed-to-by-B was created. I don't recall if N is always 5000,
generally 5000 or if it's at most 5000. This detail shouldn't matter,
other than, on occasion, you'll make an extra API call.

In any case, retrieving cursor B will never return edges created after
the edge-pointed-to-by-B was created. All edges returned by cursor B
will be no-newer-than, and generally older than, than the edge-pointed-

So, all future sets returned by cursor B are always disjoint from the
set originally returned by cursor A. In your example, if you refetched
both A and B, the result sets wouldn't be disjoint as there are no
longer 5,000 edges between cursor A and cursor B.

I think this, in part answers your question. ?

-John Kalucki
Services, Twitter Inc.

On Oct 4, 6:10 pm, Dewald Pretorius <dpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For discussion purposes, let's assume I am cursoring through a very
> volatile followers list of @veryvolatile. We have the following
> cursors:
> A = 5,000
> B = 5,000
> C = 5,000
> I retrieve Cursor A and process it. Next I retrieve Cursor B and
> process it. Then I retrieve Cursor C and process it.
> While I am processing Cursor C, 200 of the people who were in Cursor A
> unfollow @veryvolatile, and 400 of the people who were in Cursor B
> unfollow @veryvolatile.
> What do I get when I go back from C to B? Do I now get 4,600 ids in
> the list?
> Or, do I get 5,000 in B, which now includes a subset of 400 ids that
> were previously in Cursor A?
> Dewald

Reply via email to