[twitter-dev] Re: What You Put In Not The Same As What You Get Back Out
My application uploads a background image on a user's behalf. I want to be able to figure out if they are still using the background image at some future point in time. -- Kyle Mulka Founder, Congo Labs http://twilk.com On Dec 30, 5:02 pm, Zac Bowling wrote: > Twitter has to host those files. Pure guess here but like thunbnails, it's > not completely unresonable that they maybe want to optimize them for size to > save a few dollars on the hosting bills. > > Why does it mater? > > Zac Bowling > > On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Kyle Mulka wrote: > > When uploading a background image, the image contents seems to get > > modified. Seems like I should be able to do an MD5 sum on the file > > before it is uploaded, upload the image to Twitter, and when I > > download the image do another MD5 sum and the two should be the same. > > But they aren't. Why? > > > -- > > Kyle Mulka > > Founder, Congo Labs > >http://twilk.com
[twitter-dev] Re: What You Put In Not The Same As What You Get Back Out
I've noticed that you keep the filename. That was kind of annoying for other reasons: http://groups.google.com/group/twitter-development-talk/browse_thread/thread/1f63694495c02ff/a713748c19c35895 If I just check the filename, I can't be sure that the file wasn't changed by the user. It would be nice if the account/ update_profile_background_image function could guarantee that the image URL returned was the actual image I uploaded. (with whatever filtering you want to apply) -- Kyle Mulka Founder, Congo Labs http://twilk.com On Dec 30, 8:03 pm, John Adams wrote: > On Dec 30, 2009, at 4:21 PM, Kyle Mulka wrote: > > > My application uploads a background image on a user's behalf. I want > > to be able to figure out if they are still using the background image > > at some future point in time. > > The filename might work as a test for this, instead of the > computationally expensive MD5 on an image hack. > > We still retain the original file (basename) on images. > > -j > > --- > John Adams (@netik) > Twitter Operations > j...@twitter.comhttp://twitter.com/netik
Re: [twitter-dev] Re: What You Put In Not The Same As What You Get Back Out
On Dec 30, 2009, at 4:21 PM, Kyle Mulka wrote: My application uploads a background image on a user's behalf. I want to be able to figure out if they are still using the background image at some future point in time. The filename might work as a test for this, instead of the computationally expensive MD5 on an image hack. We still retain the original file (basename) on images. -j --- John Adams (@netik) Twitter Operations j...@twitter.com http://twitter.com/netik
Re: [twitter-dev] Re: What You Put In Not The Same As What You Get Back Out
Uploading the same file to Twitter twice in a row results in 2 unique URLs. For example: http://a3.twimg.com/profile_background_images/63273103/avatar-200.png http://a3.twimg.com/profile_background_images/63273237/avatar-200.png So after you upload the background image save the URL and either do HEAD request to see if it is still active or compare it to the URL in users/show. Abraham On 2009-12-31, Kyle Mulka wrote: > I've noticed that you keep the filename. That was kind of annoying for > other reasons: > > http://groups.google.com/group/twitter-development-talk/browse_thread/thread/1f63694495c02ff/a713748c19c35895 > > If I just check the filename, I can't be sure that the file wasn't > changed by the user. It would be nice if the account/ > update_profile_background_image function could guarantee that the > image URL returned was the actual image I uploaded. (with whatever > filtering you want to apply) > > > -- > Kyle Mulka > Founder, Congo Labs > http://twilk.com > > > On Dec 30, 8:03 pm, John Adams wrote: > > On Dec 30, 2009, at 4:21 PM, Kyle Mulka wrote: > > > > > My application uploads a background image on a user's behalf. I want > > > to be able to figure out if they are still using the background image > > > at some future point in time. > > > > The filename might work as a test for this, instead of the > > computationally expensive MD5 on an image hack. > > > > We still retain the original file (basename) on images. > > > > -j > > > > --- > > John Adams (@netik) > > Twitter Operations > > > j...@twitter.comhttp://twitter.com/netik > -- Abraham Williams | #doit | http://hashtagdoit.com Project | Intersect | http://intersect.labs.poseurtech.com Hacker | http://abrah.am | http://twitter.com/abraham This email is: [ ] shareable [x] ask first [ ] private.
