Mailing-List: contact esme-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of sig.rinde@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.218.213 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        b=Kt3HW3+QHC4c61Xy3yHrXkXtO86959qFi7mOhKb358OnMSeJsmSGDP4LXWy8oncaol
         M6v+n1P6k+eHOELMf0PpHv6KlBK42OaxcVmqA9wl67OHsITx2/Xx2dSej1cpAaSK9hsP
         WyeVTAZkEsMLaJ8cd8Ww3xxzFy8O0Nol8Qplw=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: sig.rinde@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <A603AFF6-FC82-471C-BF26-968188C69E39@gmail.com>
References: <fa2d9f451003050405i37f99e2dr575aa9ee82716854@mail.gmail.com>
	 <fa2d9f451003061232j71916567m4666ce7ec869592d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <c7fc82821003070035r5b22aacdx6cf2278f04772458@mail.gmail.com>
	 <fa2d9f451003070241i14b71f8blecf6b810d479f70@mail.gmail.com>
	 <c7fc82821003070806l3953628cs46953af3fefb4787@mail.gmail.com>
	 <fa2d9f451003070825p290b4a4le16ef627324305e0@mail.gmail.com>
	 <C9C888E3-30A9-4DB2-8D7A-924C2C19E199@gmail.com>
	 <c7fc82821003070851n6ce31f74n45a13c5a11e89292@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1267993917.8802.7.camel@ono-sendai>
	 <A603AFF6-FC82-471C-BF26-968188C69E39@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 22:30:20 +0100
Message-ID: <9cbd74ac1003071330g687613acq22ed11a00d931176@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: New branch for UI
From: Sig Rinde <sig@rinde.com>
To: esme-dev <esme-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Being the geek-in-training I think I might have misunderstood Anne...

Not sure where we fetch from as we're using pools - and obviously when
we filter locally we use all historical messages from the pool. So
those would be nice to have.

Ethan, I'm sure you know after the search you enabled last for us!

(My programmer is at the pub so I'm only the half-wit messenger :))

Sig

On 7 March 2010 21:46, Anne Kathrine Petter=F8e <yojibee@gmail.com> wrote:
> As I just found out, there is another very important reason to keep the p=
ublic timeline and that is thingamy.
> They are using it.
>
> So let's keep it - I also agree with what Darren is saying. A public time=
line for discovery might not be so bad.
> We have decided to make the public timeline a separate page on the new UI=
 anyway, so it won't be in the way for those of us who aren't using it.
>
> - anne
>
>
>
> On 7. mars 2010, at 21.31, Darren Hague wrote:
>
>> The public timeline can be useful in the early days of a microblogging
>> service, as I have recently discovered with the introduction of SAPTalk
>> at SAP. While there are only a few users of a service and the social
>> graph is very sparse, the public timeline is the easiest way to find &
>> follow new people.
>>
>> Once the service is established, the public timeline is much less useful
>> - but it's still quite a good way for complete newbies to get a feel for
>> what's going on. Without the public timeline, new users have a chicken &
>> egg problem to deal with - they access the service, see very few (if
>> any) messages, and wonder what the big deal is with all this
>> microblogging nonsense and don't come back for 6 months.
>>
>> Just my 2p,
>> Darren
>>
>> On Sun, 2010-03-07 at 18:51 +0200, Vassil Dichev wrote:
>>>> IMO we don't need it.
>>>> We have search and streams.
>>>>
>>>> On 7. mars 2010, at 17.25, Richard Hirsch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Do we even need the public timeline? Or should it just be accessible
>>>>> via Streams Page.
>>>
>>> I've said before that I don't see much utility in the public timeline,
>>> and it also poses performance problems, as it's difficult to cache and
>>> doesn't scale well.
>>
>>
>
>