On Tue, 2007-01-09 at 09:09 +1300, John Stowers wrote: > > I have strong objections to the inclusion of tracker into GNOME 2.18. > > > > Actually, I have one strong objection, that is: what's proposed for > > inclusion and where? If it's tracker-search-tool (the UI), I'd say that > > for what tracker *does* right now, there's no difference between tracker > > and gnome-search-tool in gnome-utils. > > This is true only if you look at the two UIs. Tracker adds search by > metadata, (including user defined metadata) such as tags. Not to > mention the quality and speed of the search is a multitude better > using tracker.
sure, since it does return the content of a small subset of the things I'd like to search, I'm sure the speed and memory footprint will be small. > If what's proposed for inclusion > > is tracker-the-indexer, then until we have a use for the indexer in more > > than one application, I'd wait for its inclusion; same goes for > > tracker-the-database. I'd also like to see a tracker-library to access > > the data without having to implement the D-Bus calls into each and every > > application. > > There is libtracker which is a really thin layer around the D-Bus API - so thin it looks like the autogenerated stuff from dbus-binding-tool. I mean a real library, giving me the facilities tracker allows me - as an application developer - to use. right now, libtracker is like the raw and low-level libdbus; where is the GMainLoop integration? Objects? Signals? Something a bit more high level for people *not* writing tracker? > > I'd also like for tracker to become less of a moving target: in the past > > six months tracker changed the database backend twice (at least), API, > > UI; and it still indexes just plain text files, images and audio files, > > with all the interesting stuff (emails, contacts, im conversations, > > bookmarks, etc.) marked as TODO. > > Are backend changes less relevant when hidden behind a stable > libtracker api?. if the D-Bus API changes, if the reliability and feature set changes this much in just six months, then tracker is *not* stable enough to do serious development work into applications. this is > Personally I would be ashamed if tracker was left our > becuase of the amount of svn activity it has seen. personally, I would be *incredibly* ashamed of rushing out some half-complete API and library, possibly breaking it each time for another couple of releases. > In the last 12 months tracker has been one of the most active projects > in GNOME, Jamie addressed a multitude of concerns by adding > considerably stronger RDF-type-semantic-web features since the last > time tracker was flamed into oblivion on ddl. you don't need to be in the GNOME desktop platform to be "active" or even "used"; but, if you enter in the desktop release, then you must adhere to standard of quality that such a young project as tracker won't be able to maintain. libraries in the desktop release *can* break API/ABI - but they should not, unless stricly necessary; is libtracker stable enough to make this guarantee? ciao, Emmanuele. -- Emmanuele Bassi, E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] W: http://www.emmanuelebassi.net B: http://log.emmanuelebassi.net _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
