Hi,
Considering all the requirements put on the alternative (and I agree
with all of them), I think unlikely to replace PyLucene with anything.
Also, though you mention using /lucene in the quick entry, the fact that
Chandler supports the Lucene syntax when doing search is a great
Chandler feature IMO.
Add to that that we barely scratch the surface of PyLucene because we
don't have features like tagging/labelling to make sense of things like
automatic sorting. When Xun made his MVA plugin during the 2006 summer
of code, he used PyLucene a lot
(http://chandlerproject.org/Journal/InternProjectMVA). Cutting it will
make the development of such advance features really difficult.
I think making a decision based on what we do today would be really
short sighted so "-1" on taking it out.
Cheers,
- Philippe
Heikki Toivonen wrote:
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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev
