Hi Laurie, 2014-08-25 18:43 GMT+02:00 Laurie Byrum <[email protected]>:
> Hi Tommaso, > I am happy to see this thread! > ;-) > > Questions: > Do you expect to want to support hierarchical or pivoted facets soonish? > I would say 'why not' if we have a valid use case. > If so, does that influence this decision? > I think so, especially it would influence the way that may be implemented. > Do you know how ACLs will come into play with your facet implementation? > not yet, I think that's one of the open points (e.g. Lukas mentioned that HippoCMS did use 'virtual nodes' for them) we should take care of; each 'term' in the facet should be properly checked, but of course doing this kind of check at that fine grain would be costly so we need to come up with a solution which is both correct from the security point of view and performant. > If so, does that influence this decision? :-) > yes, I think so :) Any suggestions and / or feedback would be highly welcome, especially from potential users of this feature so that we properly tackle your requirements (if any). Thanks and regards, Tommaso > > Thanks! > Laurie > > > > On 8/25/14 7:08 AM, "Tommaso Teofili" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >Hi all, > > > >since this has been asked every now and then [1] and since I think it's a > >pretty useful and common feature for search engine nowadays I'd like to > >discuss introduction of facets [2] for the Oak query engine. > > > >Pros: having facets in search results usually helps filtering (drill down) > >the results before browsing all of them, so the main usage would be for > >client code. > > > >Impact: probably change / addition in both the JCR and Oak APIs to support > >returning other than "just nodes" (a NodeIterator and a Cursor > >respectively). > > > >Right now a couple of ideas on how we could do that come to my mind, both > >based on the approach of having an Oak index for them: > >1. a (multivalued) property index for facets, meaning we would store the > >facets in the repository, so that we would run a query against it to have > >the facets of an originating query. > >2. a dedicated QueryIndex implementation, eventually leveraging Lucene > >faceting capabilities, which could "use" the Lucene index we already have, > >together with a "sidecar" index [3]. > > > >What do you think? > >Regards, > >Tommaso > > > >[1] : > > > http://markmail.org/search/?q=oak%20faceting#query:oak%20faceting%20list%3 > >Aorg.apache.jackrabbit.oak-dev+page:1+state:facets > >[2] : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faceted_search > >[3] : > > > http://lucene.apache.org/core/4_0_0/facet/org/apache/lucene/facet/doc-file > >s/userguide.html > >
