FWIW, the online doc around the security model is here: http://incubator.apache.org/connectors/concepts.html#ManifoldCF+security+model
Karl On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Karl Wright <[email protected]> wrote: > ManifoldCF includes a model for search engine security enforcement on > a per-document basis. However, the existing database connector does > not support OLS at this time; that would have to be added, although > that is not very hard. > > The real question is whether ManifoldCF security model will improve > the parameters of your problem, which I cannot answer without further > information. If you want to learn more, the best description of the > model can be found in ManifoldCF in Action. There's a preliminary > electronic access program called MEAP which you can sign up for; see > http://www.manning.com/wright. You'll want to read Chapter 4, which > has not yet been released, but will be in a couple of weeks. The > chapter includes example Solr integration code, which is similar to > the code included in the patch for the ticket SOLR-1895. > Alternatively, there's a fair bit of online material that attempts to > explain the security model, which you might want to examine to see if > you think the model would work well for this environment. The goal > would be to learn what an OLS "access token" should look like, and how > many of these there would likely be per user. If it's less than a > couple of thousand, it's a viable model. > > Please let us know your thoughts. > Karl > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 9:14 PM, Michael Roberts > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Our corporate policy dictates that when we search Solr, we match the user's >> potentially thousands of OLS labels against a labels field in the index. >> This inefficiency results in enormous requests that results in thousands of >> Boolean comparisons per query attempt. Someone on the Solr-user mailing >> list suggested that Manifold might be used to remedy the situation. Is that >> correct, and if so, is anyone thinking about Oracle OLS support? >> >> Thanks! >> >> >
