Mailing-List: contact user-help@lucenenet.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@lucenenet.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: itamar.synhershko@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <4606B227B7AF19498F107C2C59CC9849867390F1@Ex10DAG10-N1.apps4rent.net>
References: <CAHTr4ZvmQK35HhyyC8SEsasKhai+Y5M7rdQWUFRxR7T92HxOiw@mail.gmail.com>
 <4606B227B7AF19498F107C2C59CC9849867390F1@Ex10DAG10-N1.apps4rent.net>
From: Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 18:40:15 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHTr4ZvVxxPtGzUYsWY2eX_+WzevUwtM2FEYfDEm5H-zsf=Z3g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Lucene.NET 4.8 demo
To: Shad Storhaug <shad@shadstorhaug.com>
Cc: "user@lucenenet.apache.org" <user@lucenenet.apache.org>,
	"dev@lucenenet.apache.org" <dev@lucenenet.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114b007a2c729c0540e94bae
archived-at: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 02:41:23 -0000

--001a114b007a2c729c0540e94bae
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Great feedback Shad, thanks

Yes, let's add AnonymousAnalyzer to core - or see if we can just use the
Analyzer class for this. This indeed looks better - the demo was just a
quick'n'dirty something I wrote, but it was intended especially for finding
pain-points like you just did. Another pain-point is the LuceneVersion
argument that we currently have as a requirement - and I'm mid-work on
removing it and setting it's value via a default. Anything else that you
can think of would probably make sense to add too :)

More comments inline.
--

Itamar Syn-Hershko
http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
Freelance Developer & Consultant
Lucene.NET committer and PMC member

On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 1:27 AM, Shad Storhaug <shad@shadstorhaug.com> wrote:

>
> Another thing I noticed is that we should probably move the
> TokenStreamComponents class so it is not a nested class of Analyzer to
> match the syntax more closely to Lucene.
>
>
Not sure, I think the current syntax make things quite concise. Maybe a
helper/shortcut method would be helpful instead.


> A few thoughts on the demo:
>
> 1. Not everyone is familiar with a GitHub organization. Perhaps the demo
> should provide a list to choose from? Currently, if you type something that
> doesn't exist you get an exception. I had to do a Google search to come up
> with something, since my own username didn't work. One of the top results
> (before an actual list of organizations) was an API that can be utilized to
> read all of the GitHub organizations: https://developer.github.com/
> v3/orgs/


microsoft, facebook, github, apache - there are plenty. I will fix the
exceptions, and some WriteLine and docs in the Readme will fix the rest.


>
> 2. Maybe there should be some kind of estimate given on how long it will
> take to index the organization. When I ultimately chose "apache" it took
> several minutes to index the results, which I was not expecting.
>

Shouldn't take minutes. The demo is pulling the Readme HTML for each so
that might be slowing things done, but I don't have the time to add a
progress bar :)


> 3. Perhaps the API key should be put into a separate (config) file rather
> than inline in the code. And you could pre-define the name of this file and
> put it into a .gitignore file. This would help prevent anyone from
> accidentally committing their API key to the Git repo.
>

Yup, maybe in the future :)


> 4. The search results seemed a bit underwhelming. Maybe there should be
> some kind of indicators how many results Lucene.Net had to sift through to
> come up with the short list. Or at least there should be some kind of
> explanation what is happening to put things into perspective. Think of a
> crime scene investigation. If the investigators enter the search criteria
> and it comes up with 50,000 suspects it would ruin their day. If it comes
> up with 3, then their work is much easier. But without some kind of
> indicator showing that 3 is better than 50,000, the latter seems much more
> impressive in a demo.
>

The total number of results is displayed - along with the 10 top-rated
results. I could prettify it and add higlighted snippets (which would be a
nice addition to the demo!), and give more context etc - but as I said this
is a quick'n'dirty job. I will probably do this later on to try and find
more pain points / improvements we could do to the API. Contributions
welcome.


> 5. Perhaps there should be some way to reset the index? I entered another
> organization to test my updates to the code and it added that
> organization's results to the original index, which I wasn't expecting.
>

That should be eay to do.


>
>
> Thanks,
> Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: itamar.synhershko@gmail.com [mailto:itamar.synhershko@gmail.com] On
> Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko
> Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2016 6:45 AM
> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org; user@lucenenet.apache.org
> Subject: Lucene.NET 4.8 demo
>
> Hey folks,
>
> I just pushed a working demo for Lucene.NET 4.8 using the latest bits to
> index and search public repositories on github. Check it out:
> https://github.com/synhershko/LuceneNetDemo
>
> I also recorded a Channel 9 video walking through the demo - I will post
> it here again as soon as it's released on the nets.
>
> This should clarify some mysteries around the new-ish API and hopefully
> drive confidence in what we consider a stable beta release.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
>
> Itamar Syn-Hershko
> http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
> Freelance Developer & Consultant Lucene.NET committer and PMC member
>

--001a114b007a2c729c0540e94bae--