+1
I'd like the basic search to be more basic (ie, search all the fields
at once), and the index to be consolidated. This is more inline with
how it was built in 0.9. Then on top of that, weighting results
appropriately to make it easier to find. Continuing to support Lucene
search syntax is a good idea for those that want power from the quick
search.
Then the advanced search should be the flexible, descriptive way to
search on specific fields via the UI without knowing the Lucene
syntax. I think find artifact can be folded into that page now.
I agree with pulling upstream repos indexes. I'd rather we do that via
Archiva web services rather than taking whole index files so we can do
an actual "diff" to apply efficiently. I don't know if Lucene has some
native support for that already but we could do it via timestamped
records. We should mark the source in the record so that searches can
clarify they don't already reside locally.
The above ties into the metadata proposal too - with plugins and
metadata we can pull remote info on artifacts to consolidate
information without having to sync all the artifacts themselves. So
Lucene indexing is just one place that would use that, but it would be
used by other plugins, reporting, etc.
Cheers,
Brett
On 14/11/2008, at 8:40 AM, James William Dumay wrote:
Hey guys,
As mentioned on IRC we all agreed that our search feature is a
little suboptimal.
I would like to propose the following improvements:
* Search should be more like mvnrepository.com (showing codebase
growth etc).
* We should figure out a way of using up stream repository indexes
to improve search results.
* Advanced search needs a good rethink - we should probably use a
filter approach so that you could do bytecode: search results that
include free text search.
* UI improvements so that the user experience feels more intuitive.
Discuss!
James
--
Brett Porter
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
