If the fields provided by twitter4j are good enough, I prefer option 1. It would be good to avoid a separate request to Twitter due to the overhead.
Chen On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Jianfeng Jia <[email protected]> wrote: > Good to know there is another request inside twitter4j. > I think given the popularity of twitter4j, if we can parse all the fields > in list 1 to ADM then it will be good enough. > > > On Feb 23, 2016, at 12:00 AM, abdullah alamoudi <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Jianfeng, > > We are using twitter4j api to get tweets as Status objects. I believe > that > > twitter4j itself discards the original JSON when creating Status objects. > > They provide a method to get the full json: > > > > String rawJSON = DataObjectFactory.getRawJSON(status); > > > > This method however sends another request to Twitter to get the original > > JSON. > > We have a few choices: > > 1. be okay with what twitter4j keeps {CreatedAt, Id, Text, Source, > > isTruncated, InReplyToStatusId, InReplyToUserId, InReplyToScreenName, > > GeoLocation, Place, isFavorited, isRetweeted, FavoriteCount, User, > > isRetweet, RetweetedStatus, Contributors, RetweetCount, isRetweetedByMe, > > CurrentUserRetweetId, PossiblySensitive, Lang,Scopes, > WithheldInCountries}. > > However this means that we will not get additional feeds in case the > actual > > data structure change. We can actually change this into JSON object using > > the method above and then we can use our ADM parser to parse it. > > > > 2. Instead of relying on twitter4j, we should be able to get the JSON > > objects directly using http requests to twitter. This way always gives us > > the complete JSON object as it comes from twitter.com and we will get > new > > fields the moment they are added. > > > > I think either way should be fine and I actually think that we should > stick > > to twitter4j for now and still use a specialized tweet parser which will > > simply transform the objects fields into ADM fields unless there is a > > strong need for fields that are not covered by the list in (1). > > > > My 2c, > > Abdullah. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 3:46 AM, Jianfeng Jia <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> Dear devs, > >> > >> TwitterFeedAdapter is nice, but the internal TweetParser have some > >> limitations. > >> 1. We only pick a few JSON field, e.g. user, geolocation, message > field. I > >> need the place field. Also there are also some other fields the other > >> application may also interested in. > >> 2. The text fields always call getNormalizedString() to filter out the > >> non-ascii chars, which is a big loss of information. Even for the > English > >> txt there are emojis which are not “nomal” > >> > >> Apparently we can add the entire twitter structure into this parser. I’m > >> wondering if the current one-to-one mapping between Adapter and Parser > >> design is the best approach? The twitter data itself changes. Also there > >> are a lot of interesting open data resources, e.g. Instagram,FaceBook, > >> Weibo, Reddit …. Could we have a general approach for all these data > >> sources? > >> > >> I’m thinking to have some field level JSON to ADM parsers > >> (int,double,string,binary,point,time,polygon…). Then by given the schema > >> option through Adapter we can easily assemble the field into one record. > >> The schema option could be a field mapping between original JSON id and > the > >> ADM type, e.g. { “id”:Int64, “user”: { “userid”: int64,..} }. As such, > we > >> don’t have to write the specific parser for different data source. > >> > >> Another thoughts is to just give the JSON object as it is, and rely on > the > >> user’s UDF to parse the data. Again, even in this case, user can > >> selectively override several field parsers that are different from ours. > >> > >> Any thoughts? > >> > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Jianfeng Jia > >> PhD Candidate of Computer Science > >> University of California, Irvine > >> > >> > > > > Best, > > Jianfeng Jia > PhD Candidate of Computer Science > University of California, Irvine > >
