Scott Lawrence (jerronimo) wrote in lj_clients,
Scott Lawrence


I asked about this a little while ago (probably last april, since that's the last time I worked on JLJ...)

Okay, so one of the things I added in to the latest version of JLJ was a call back to my webserver to check for new versions of the software. To make this easier on myself for parsing, I have the php script on my end output in a manner similar to the LJ's server... something like this:

Which gets parsed by my client like the lj's server responses as well.
I then check this against the internal version string, and if they're different, i print out a message stating to go to [URL] to get the latest version, blah, blah, blah.

The thing is though, that in my jlj script I also send with the request:

  • software name (jlj)
  • software version (2.5)
  • username (jerronimo) (or whatever)
for some personal stats, since the livejournal stats page, is kind of lacking as far as real client statistics.

For now, I just keep track of who/how many people are using which versions of the program.

I realize though, that a client writer can get more dangerous and also send the user's passwords, or even their posts to their own server, and are just trusting the client writer to be honest about this.

Am I doing something that any of you think is wrong? This is just for personal stats out of curiosity of the product. Do any of you do something similar with your clients?Discuss. ;)


  • 302: lj_dev

    In the interests of consolidating all LiveJournal development-related discussion, we're going to be closing down this community. The same…

  • Plain text to LJ

    I have an old blog from xanga that's in html/plain text and I want to move it over here. Which client would be the best to do this? I also want to…

  • ljKlient 0.2.0 Preview Release 1

    Today marks another milestone in the development of ljKlient — as the first preview of the 0.2 series is released.  Please go to the project…

  • Post a new comment


    Comments allowed for members only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened