Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Protocol: Better Follow/FollowGroup. #131

Open
NfNitLoop opened this issue Jan 26, 2025 · 0 comments
Open

Protocol: Better Follow/FollowGroup. #131

NfNitLoop opened this issue Jan 26, 2025 · 0 comments

Comments

@NfNitLoop
Copy link
Member

I'm not happy with FollowGroup.

In an effort not to break backward compatibility, I kept the same repeated Follow follows type, and bolted on an optional int32 follow_group field.

That means that implementors have to keep the follows and follow_groups indexes in sync. And if one implementation is lazy, they can become out of sync and break things.

It's complicated enough that I never even implemented it myself.

Ideally we'd just shove the follows into follow-groups so that it's easy to implement. Maybe we keep the "follows" field around too for ungrouped follows? Need to think on this one.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant