?

Log in

No account? Create an account
How often to checkfriends? - LiveJournal Client Discussions [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
LiveJournal Client Discussions

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

How often to checkfriends? [Jan. 9th, 2002|02:32 am]
LiveJournal Client Discussions
lj_clients
[ex_cerebrate131]
What's the current consensus on how often it's acceptable to send a checkfriends?

While the server will throttle me if I set it too short (and my code's written to pick the longer of the returned interval and the local setting anyway, of course), I figure it's probably better to be courteous in the first place. I'm figureing something between five minutes/quarter hour as a first cut, but what're other people using?

(BTW, hi, everyone! I'm writing a .NET library to talk to LiveJournal, as I've promised some friends a quick way to port their journals over here from another site. I'm probably going to look at a .NET-based client on top of it as well, later.)
linkReply

Comments:
From: evan
2002-01-08 06:45 pm (UTC)
Which other site?

Just look at whatever minimum time the server suggests; I believe other people are using 30 seconds. (LJ users are addicts.)
(Reply) (Thread)
From: ex_cerebrate131
2002-01-08 06:54 pm (UTC)

Re:

The Open Diary (http://www.opendiary.com/), which is getting much too advertising-heavy for my taste (my take on it is that I'll gladly pay for the service, but I'll pass on having to pay and still having multiple pop-ups). A few people with particularly long diaries are quailing at the thought of having to move them with cut-and-paste.

I'm planning to make it configurable, but always at least what the server suggests - just looking for a sensible default. 30 seconds works for me.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: evan
2002-01-08 06:59 pm (UTC)
What language do you write .NET stuff in? C++ or C#?
We could use a good Win32 client... :)

You look like a relatively new user, so on the chance that you don't know too much about LiveJournal: we're super-bend-over-backwards-friendly to anyone who wants to change anything / contribute anything to the site, even to the point of giving account codes (and in rare cases permanent accounts) for contributions.

Let me know if you need anything. (I guess I'm the official "client" contact here.)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: ex_cerebrate131
2002-01-08 07:08 pm (UTC)

Re:

I stick with C#, mostly - if I'm not going to write unmanaged code, C++ just seems to get in the way a lot...

Time and day job permitting, I'll give a Win32 client a shot, see what I can come up with.

Thanks.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: visions
2002-01-08 07:33 pm (UTC)
hehe. if you need help, let me know. i am the author of the win32 client that lj currently has as its official client. i also have some experience with .net and c# so.. :)

it sounds like the project you are doing right now, is what i had been planning on starting for the past 5 months or so, but keep getting distracted with work and other fun projects.

if you are interested in doing a c# client (or need/want help with the c# lj lib) let me know. i'd be interested in helping out.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: billemon
2002-01-09 10:25 am (UTC)
Hmm. I missed all the original discussion and development of the friends-checking stuff. Was a notifier (rather than polling) ever suggested/tried/abandoned? It takes some work on the server side, but strikes me if this is going to become common (which it will, if it's available) it would use less resources in the long run if a client could open a port, and solicit the server to send it messages if changes happen, rather than keep asking. I'm sure there will be drawbacks (like it won't work through firewalls and whatnot properly) but ... I'm sure some (hopefully largish) percentage would be able to use this.

Now I've said all that, I havn't actually looked at coding such a monstrosity, so I'll shut up and go 'way and think about it now ...

(Reply) (Thread)
From: mrlithium
2002-01-14 09:04 am (UTC)
some users cant open ports on their machine due to firewall/router/nat or whatever. i also think the server would be doing more work than it had to.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)