Thanks John. However, I will be the first to put up my hand and say that I have no clue what you said.
Can someone please translate John's answer into easy to understand language, with specific relation to the questions I asked? Dewald On Oct 5, 1:17 am, John Kalucki <[email protected]> wrote: > 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- > to-by-B. > > 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 Kaluckihttp://twitter.com/jkalucki > Services, Twitter Inc. > > On Oct 4, 6:10 pm, Dewald Pretorius <[email protected]> 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
