On Aug 7, 9:54 am, "Leslie P. Polzer" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> John Fremlin wrote:
> > Thanks for the link. That looks like a slightly different approach to
> > the old and resurrected isearch.
>
> It needs to. The old isearch vanished when store abstractions were
> introduced because it's not easy to provide efficient isearch across
> different stores and views.

What happened to the flag specifying if the store supports full-text
searches? It used to be there.

 Also, I'm beginning to believe that the store abstraction needs to be
a lot more sophisticated in what it provides querying-wise, we used to
run into mismatches that'd result in turning SQL-able queries into
looping over results in the Lisp code all the time in the cl-perec
backend (which is, before you ask, scrapped for the time being, due to
it making us fight on two fronts and consequently progressing on none.
We might resurrect it when the logic is correct, and when we have a
reasonable idea of how we want it to operate, exactly).

Perec has a very effective query compiler that can turn queries
expressed in terms of lisp types and funcalls into real SQL, but
because there's hardly any query interface to stores, there was no way
to pass that info down. I know that a "generic ORM layer" is a doomed
project, but what we have right now is the "generic client-side
looping over SQL results". I think a store-agnostic query compiler
would be in order (maybe something could be stolen from Perec
itself?), then simple stores could continue to be simple and function
with the Lisp-side processing, but real DB interfaces could implement
a more sophisticated language, as they have the means to support it.

Cheers,
Maciej
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"weblocks" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/weblocks?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to