Brad Fitzpatrick (bradfitz) wrote in lj_maintenance,
Brad Fitzpatrick
bradfitz
lj_maintenance

Journal backups

In regards to syncitems being disabled, let me reply to a comment here so everybody can see it...

eurisko97 wrote:

So if you want a feature really bad, you sholud write buggy code into a client that kills the datbase and forces you to provide that feature?

I don't mean to sound rude, I just think it's silly that only now are you "accelerating" this wonderful, wonderful idea that we've never heard of evrey time the cumbersome LJBackup method was brought up. This really shoulp have been very high on the priority list.

I guess it was just a poor choice of words.

Also, this shouldn't be a paid feature in my opinion. Charging to get my own content back is just wrong.

My response:

  • We will not charge for it, and never said we would. That'd be counter-productive. The goal is to let people quickly and easily download their journal without screen-scraping the site.
  • We never provided a whole file download before because it's technically the wrong thing to do. (we did provide the month download page) Why should you have to download years of posts and comments every time there's one new post? That's why we made syncitems in the first place.... it's the proper solution: only download what's new. Unfortunately, only one client ever got it right as far as I'm aware. We spent more time fighting buggy clients which didn't understand how syncitems worked. The "cumbersome LJBackup method" shouldn't need to be cumbersome, and LogJam definitely isn't.
  • We'd like to restore syncitems so we don't invalidate the hard work backup client authors have put into them, but first we have to put up a document explaining more of the details on how programmers should use it properly. evan's been meaning to write such a document. Also, we may start asking clients to include a client key and version in each request, so we can disable buggy clients individually, rather than taking down an entire feature.
  • Ideally, the new solution will be: clients download the whole journal, and use then use syncitems from then on. Or maybe clients will just do whole download... whatever's easiest on programmers.

Please, everybody: don't jump to conclusions like how this is a scam to make money or whatever. As always, problems come up and we address them. In this case, the syncitems protocol is too confusing. We'll fix.

Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

  • 61 comments
Previous
← Ctrl ← Alt
Next
Ctrl → Alt →
Previous
← Ctrl ← Alt
Next
Ctrl → Alt →