?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Limitations to synchronizing offline copy? - LogJam [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
LogJam

[ website | LogJam ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Limitations to synchronizing offline copy? [Mar. 18th, 2006|02:02 pm]
LogJam
logjam
[ex_trurl]
[Current Mood |curiouscurious]

I've been using the "Synchronize Offline Copy" for a bit now to make local backups of my journal. However, I haven't experimented much with making changes locally and seeing what happens when they are propagated back. But it occurred to me that various changes (searching for and correcting broken links, etc.) would be a lot easier to accomplish by directly working with the local XML files in my .logjam directory rather than trying to use XMLRPC or whatnot to communicate with the LiveJournal servers directly. Is there any information stored in the XML files that I could potentially change that would not properly propagate back?
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: muerte
2006-03-18 07:16 pm (UTC)
Does that even work? I thought it was a backup only option.
(Reply) (Thread)
From: ex_trurl
2006-03-18 11:21 pm (UTC)
As I said, I've never tried :-)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: piman
2006-03-18 07:38 pm (UTC)
Yeah, as far as I know "synchronize" is a poor name. It's more like "Download Offline Copy."
(Reply) (Thread)
From: ex_trurl
2006-03-18 11:21 pm (UTC)
Oh well.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: evan
2006-03-18 11:28 pm (UTC)
Good point. I should rename it.

I had sorta imagined I'd use it for synchronization one day, though.
The scary thing about pushing entries back to the server is that any LogJam bugs (like if it manages to not save an entry's tag list due to a typo or something) clobber your old entries.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: ex_trurl
2006-03-18 11:31 pm (UTC)
Okay, given that option is out, what is the best library for writing programs against the LiveJournal API?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: evan
2006-03-19 05:16 am (UTC)
*shrug*

I mean, it's as powerful as any other library for that sort of thing. All the LiveJournal-specific bits are done; what needs to be done is to be able to mark entries in the disk store as "dirty" and then to have LogJam re-submit them. I just haven't ever gotten around to it 'cause I don't really need it.

I have used this library: http://neugierig.org/software/livejournal/ruby/
for when I wanted to retag a bunch of posts, but that's mostly because pretty much any language is easier to write quick hacks in than C.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: ex_trurl
2006-03-20 04:27 pm (UTC)
Right, my original ideas was hoping that I could just write my hacks over the XML logjam stores.

So you think this Ruby library is the best to use for smallish hacks then? I'm not opposed to considering other languages, but if you think it is a best starting point for this sort of thing, I'll see if I can pick up some Ruby.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: evan
2006-03-21 12:08 am (UTC)
To be honest, there's no language I'm really happy with. :)

If you hacked it into LogJam, everyone else could use it, which would be nice. But then it also requires hacking it into LogJam.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: ex_trurl
2006-03-23 06:35 pm (UTC)
It is certainly something to consider, but I can't guess at how soon I might have time to develop a patch.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: disco_candi
2006-04-01 12:47 am (UTC)
What about the others that need it but aren't quite able to write good c yet? :)

*Flutters eyelids*
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)