On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 14:49 -0700, Chris Hostetter wrote: > i've definitely wished more then once that they took in a field name > as a parameter.
+1 for starting a branch with non-depricated radically reconstructed fields after release of 2.0. I'd be happy to document all design discussions with UML. If it works well in theory someone is bound to type in the code. Maybe even I. I'm sure it will find its way back to the trunk if it is good enough. And maybe some Scorer-people should join in to glance at a more pluggable per-search scoring strategy without all the hardwired code. Have a look at per-term position boosting, et.c. That would be really great. Anyone with six months of vacation? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
