Hi Peter, Both issues are currently in progress. Lucene integration is currently only experimental and is not really flexible or stable to use in production (it is not even documented). Our goal is to provide enough flexibility so that e.g. custom analyzers and result rankings are easily pluggable by the engine user.
It will be of great value to us if you could summarize the full-text search flexibility you will need. The "when" question is a lot harder to answer. I can't give you any concrete due dates currently, but this is something on the table now and we should be able to deliver results within the next couple of months. I hope I'm not too wrong about that... :) Cheers and have a happy new year! Ivan On Friday 18 December 2009 13:01:51 Ing. Peter Kostelník PhD. wrote: > hi there, > > we're planning to use the BigOWLIM as the production backend, so I've got > just the few questions regarding the further BigOWLIM developement .. > > 1. I've noticed, that in 3.2.6 snapshot, there is the direct dependency to > Lucene 2.9 core .. so, I assume, you're planning to integrate the lucene > as the fulltext index/search engine .. pls, would there be the support for > configuring the lucene? I mean the essential issues, such as adding custom > analysers/tokenizers, fuzzy search support, custom query parsers, etc. ? > .. when do you plan to integrate the lucene? > > 2. is there some possibility to force BigOWLIM to perform logging in some > reasonable way? .. now everything is flushed into (I guess) System.out/err > .. and, well, this is not so suitable for production backend .. > > thanks in advance, > best wishes and merry christmas, > Peter K. > > _______________________________________________ > OWLIM-discussion mailing list > [email protected] > http://ontotext.com/mailman/listinfo/owlim-discussion _______________________________________________ OWLIM-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://ontotext.com/mailman/listinfo/owlim-discussion
