Couldn't you add a cleaning process to statuses just before they are sent to clients but after they have been filtered into streams? The cleaning process could pick up delete flags and remove extraneous metadata from the status.
Abraham On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 23:31, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky <zzn...@gmail.com>wrote: > > -- > M. Edward (Ed) Borasky > borasky-research.net/m-edward-ed-borasky/ > > "A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems." ~ Paul > Erdos > > > > > Quoting Mark McBride <mmcbr...@twitter.com>: > > Yes, that's correct. We've considered adding more metadata to delete >> messages to make routing easier, but the privacy issues involved get >> tricky >> (if I delete something, do I *really* want the full text re-sent to a >> bunch >> of people?) >> > > Yeah - definitely tricky. The delete messages coming from "sample" only > give the user_id and status_id, and I have to assume that the "publish" > process doesn't send me a delete for a status that it didn't send to me. ;-) > > I suppose you could do the same for "filter", but that would mean keeping > track of all the tweets sent to *each* filter connection, not just one set > of tweets like "sample". That could get ugly since you can't predict / > control how many "filter" connections you're going to get or how many tweets > are going to be passed by the filter criteria. > -- Abraham Williams | Community Advocate | http://abrah.am Project | Out Loud | http://outloud.labs.poseurtech.com This email is: [ ] shareable [x] ask first [ ] private.