Re: [documancer] Re: [documancer-users] a few bugs?

[Vaclav S. <vac...@ma...>]

Hi,

arn...@we... wrote:
> Alright, that sounds much better, but I don't have any
> experience in this direction ...
> On my unix box a
>   sock=3Dsocket.socket(socket.AF_UNIX,socket.SOCK_STREAM)
>   sock.bind("socket_file")
> works fine. I don't know if this works under windows as well,
> but I am skeptical (AF_*UNIX* ;-)...

It (almost) certainly doesn't, but it's better to have it working on=20
Unix  than not at all and win32 mechanism can be added later...

> That sounds good. So the "search string" sent to documancer-remote
> could look like
>   <book_identifier_no_or_string>::<search_text>

Why not e.g.=20
  documancer-remote --book=3D"Python" --search=3D"thread and lock"
? Saves parsing... And there may be other remote commands other than=20
search that take book argument.

> ((I think a textual identifier for the book would be better
> than a numerical id (unless this is "uniquely" attached to
> a book string) so that re-ordering/additions of books does
> change the association)).

The books are internally identified by their name, so this is not a=20
problem. The ID is identical to the (human-readable) title of the=20
book.=20

> More generally, for searches (both remotely and within documancer)
> a way to specify collection of books would be nice.

Yes, by all means.

Regards,
VS

=2D-=20
PGP key: 0x465264C9, available from http://pgp.mit.edu/