The project may have been abandoned, but a few different people have worked on Lucence and CF (Dimitri, ray, me, guy from whirlpool i forget his name (sorry)). There must be more folk. Maybe a discussion for OpenBD...
Are we allowed to go OT yet? I think Steve solved his problem, or at least evolved it :) The verity in CF is capped at (x) documents and is/was expensive to expand. I also recall having an index on one CF server was not so esy to use on another CF server. I recall having to expose verify functionality as a web service so other servers could invoke the same search. Meaning the server with the index was a single point of failure. What do you disagree with Ray? I did say 'maybe'... of course a jedi could make it work any which way he liked :) On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 12:59 AM, Raymond Camden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > When was the last time it was worked on? I think last time I checked > it was abandoned. The URL seems dea for sure. > > I also respectfully disagree with you about Verity. But that's another > topic. > > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 10:14 AM, MrBuzzy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Wouldn't it make sense to collaborate more on (cf)Lucene? I know of a few > > people who have worked on it. I don't quite get why so multiple variants > of > > the same thing need to exists. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with > > that... but it could all be *better*. Maybe if it was good enough Adobe > > could drop Verity...? > > > > My 2c - ditch Verity. From experience it only works practically with one > CF > > instance. Try to scale up/out and you're going to have some issues, maybe > :P > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
