archiva-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dan Tran" <dant...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Search improvements for 1.2
Date Fri, 14 Nov 2008 03:43:04 GMT
We need automatic database upgrade at startup.

-D

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Maria Odea Ching <oching@apache.org> wrote:
> +1 from me too :)
>
> It has been a bit painful having separate indices for any-text and bytecode
> searches. While we're on the verge of improving the indexing and search, we
> should also consider how we would structure the index for easy integration
> with IDEs (e.g. integration with m2eclipse, q4e/IAM, etc.).
>
> Thanks,
> Deng
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Brett Porter <brett@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> I'd like the basic search to be more basic (ie, search all the fields at
>> once), and the index to be consolidated. This is more inline with how it was
>> built in 0.9. Then on top of that, weighting results appropriately to make
>> it easier to find. Continuing to support Lucene search syntax is a good idea
>> for those that want power from the quick search.
>>
>> Then the advanced search should be the flexible, descriptive way to search
>> on specific fields via the UI without knowing the Lucene syntax. I think
>> find artifact can be folded into that page now.
>>
>> I agree with pulling upstream repos indexes. I'd rather we do that via
>> Archiva web services rather than taking whole index files so we can do an
>> actual "diff" to apply efficiently. I don't know if Lucene has some native
>> support for that already but we could do it via timestamped records. We
>> should mark the source in the record so that searches can clarify they don't
>> already reside locally.
>>
>> The above ties into the metadata proposal too - with plugins and metadata
>> we can pull remote info on artifacts to consolidate information without
>> having to sync all the artifacts themselves. So Lucene indexing is just one
>> place that would use that, but it would be used by other plugins, reporting,
>> etc.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Brett
>>
>>
>> On 14/11/2008, at 8:40 AM, James William Dumay wrote:
>>
>>  Hey guys,
>>> As mentioned on IRC we all agreed that our search feature is a little
>>> suboptimal.
>>>
>>> I would like to propose the following improvements:
>>> * Search should be more like mvnrepository.com (showing codebase growth
>>> etc).
>>> * We should figure out a way of using up stream repository indexes to
>>> improve search results.
>>> * Advanced search needs a good rethink - we should probably use a filter
>>> approach so that you could do bytecode: search results that include free
>>> text search.
>>> * UI improvements so that the user experience feels more intuitive.
>>>
>>> Discuss!
>>>
>>> James
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Brett Porter
>> brett@apache.org
>> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message