Andi Vajda wrote: > On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Phillip J. Eby wrote: >> What are we using Lucene for, exactly? Has CLucene caught up to the >> features we use? What do we use that is not available in other tools? > > Currently, we've barely scratched the surface about what we can do with > full text index and search. It was a struggle just to get the search UI > into Preview. You're asking "at the moment" and the answer to that is > "not much".
Ok, I think it is worth discussing if we should do something about PyLucene. If we could do everything we do now with PyLucene (barring the /lucene command in quick entry box) with something more ligtweight, I think we should, but only if the following hold true: * We have no plans to leverage more of PyLucene within the next 6 months. If the actual plan is to never use more of PyLucene then it would be a no-brainer to take it out, IMO. * Alternative development/integration would take less than a month. * Alternative performs at least as well as PyLucene. * Alternative uses no more resources (memory, disk) than PyLucene. * Alternative has smaller download footprint than PyLucene + openjdk. * Alternative does not have unusual build requirements. Another point would be stability, but that can only be tested through use: * Alternative must be at least as bug-free as PyLucene. -- Heikki Toivonen
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev
