Re: [Tikiwiki-devel] Removal of DB-independent search (was Re: tiki search removal)

[Stephane C. <se...@lo...>]

Le Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 09:04:14AM -0500, Marc Laporte écrivait :
> Stephane:
> 
> I strongly reject your reference about keeping people "in the dark".
> We are having the discussion. Everything is public.

I was talking of the users, not the developpers.
And in the dark I ment : with no other solution to their problems/needs
this the removal of features...

This work should have been announce a little earlier, that would have
avoided all this painful discussion...

> 10 days before freeze is ample time to revert if needed. I asked for
> clear answers below. Just say why this features provides value and
> we'll put it back. It was removed in one clean commit and it can/will
> be restored if demand justifies it.

Well I saw a few commits, so don't know if it would be easy, should be,
but... there is two side on this.

 First the removal of the DB independance code : for this I am
disapointed but will not object strongly against its removal.

 Second the removal of one of the tiki search : for this I object,
because :
  o the functionnality works
  o it provide feature not available elsewhere
  o as nothing to do with point one
  o will confuse users using this feature (ok they are also confused by
the presence of two search feature but this is another point)
  o it is done without preliminary discussion (at last on @devel)
  o does not provide at least a replacement

So 
 point one : ok go with it
 point two : rollback and reput the old search engine

for the point two, we can remove it in trunk after the branching of
tiki5 and work on a solution with Lucene for Tiki6 (that would avoid to
delete two works that pkdille invest time ;p)

> > Since having two search engines is more work for our volunteers, I
> > would like to return the question and to put the onus on you to
> > explain why we should keep. I would also like to hear opinions from
> > people that use or intend to use the DB independent search.
> >
> >
> > 1- If Tiki had been MySQL-only since the beginning, and we were using
> > the MySQL search since the beginning:  would we take the time to build
> > this second search engine?

We would build a better one with additional features. the pb with the
MysqL search is that it does not provide a superset of the
functionnalities present in the old Tiki Search. They are complementary
as noted Sylvie (even if rarely used)

> > 2- MYSQL-search was picked as the default search engine on clean
> > installs because it was deemed to better. Do you agree?  Why do you
> > feel we should maintain two search engines?

Well we can keep it in, as the last persons doing work on it was pkdille
(to merge it with MySQL search) and me. There is no pb keeping it for
Tiki5 and get ride of it, with a alternative and better search, in Tiki6.

> > So far, valid arguments I noted are:
> > Sylvie: "Even if I do not use very often the tiki search - I like to use if I
> > want to search on a parsed text. The mysql search indexes on the non
> > parsed content."
> >
> >
> > Other benefits?  Does this justify the overhead?

Doesn't hurt, doesn't take much disc place... doesn't need lot of care,
but does provide functionalities with users not found in the other
engine...

I just think it is bad for users (old ones, because new ones will not
care).

We can do a vote and I will glady accept the result ! ;p
So +1 to keep it ! ;p

A+
-- 
Stéphane Casset            LOGIDÉE sàrl       Se faire plaisir d'apprendre
1a, rue Pasteur        Tel : +33 388 23 69 77           ca...@lo...
F-67540 OSTWALD        Fax : +33 388 23 69 77           http://logidee.com