Re: Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] Comment on CVS change
Tres Seaver writes:
>
> Given that any site manager can override the policy trivially, using
> only two lines of DTML, should we really be switching the (admittedly
> arbitrary) existing polciy embedded in the core?
>
> Tres.
>
> P.S.
>
>search_with_and="_.string.join( search_terms, ' and ' )">
>
>
>
> OK, so it is two and a half lines.
Be careful!
The catalog supports "..." and "(...)".
Your two lines may give spurious operators for
white space inside "..." and after "(" or before ")"
Dieter
___
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] Comment on CVS change
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Tres Seaver wrote: > Given that any site manager can override the policy trivially, using > only two lines of DTML, should we really be switching the (admittedly > arbitrary) existing polciy embedded in the core? [... >search_with_and="_.string.join( search_terms, ' and ' )"> > > > > OK, so it is two and a half lines. Well, actually it's a *lot* more than that, unless you have both a regular search and an 'advanced search' box. Consider what happens if the user enters the following search string: foo or bar The code above produces the search "foo and or and bar". I'm actally not sure what Catalog will do with that, but I doubt it is what the searcher intended. Even if you have regular and advanced search boxes, having the default operator in one be the opposite of the default operator in the other would be a bad thing from a user interface design standpoint, IMO. Making the default operator settable strikes me as simpler/better design than writing a method that will do the transformation correctly, since the latter basically requries duplicating the top level of the text index search input parser. --RDM ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] Comment on CVS change
> I've gotta weigh in here, too; the breakage induced by this change > will be large. Give that what *real* users expect is *neither* a > Boolean "AND" *nor* a Boolean "OR", but instead a DWIM/Googlesque > "affinity" search, I don't think the win is clear enough to warrant > the breakage: > > * "AND" searches return *small* result sets; non-programmers > will be surprised by the often-empty lists they get back, > and won't have any clue how to broaden their search. False > negatives suck. I think most people are getting used to narrowing their search by adding terms. Google, Yahoo, Lycos and the like have trained them to do this. I think the idea that folks, even nonprogrammers, don't know to do this in the post-1995 world may be a little flawed. > Given that any site manager can override the policy trivially, using > only two lines of DTML, should we really be switching the (admittedly > arbitrary) existing polciy embedded in the core? No, I suppose not. I'll change it back. :-( Not happy about it. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
