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

[<ba...@ph...>]

Hi,

> > 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.
>   documancer-remote --book="Python" --search="thread and lock"
> ? Saves parsing... And there may be other remote commands other than
> search that take book argument.

Absolutely! In my remark above I messed up the options
given to documancer-remote and what documancer-remote will send
to the file socket (i.e. to the documancer application).
What I wanted to express is that one presumably
needs to specify some "protocol" of commands send back and forth
between eg. documancer-remote and the documancer application.
Putting everything in one string may have the advantage that
all needed information arrives in one chunk, however parsing of this
line is required. (Actually something like
  <SEARCH>::<book_identifier_no_or_string>::<search_text>
would allow for generalizations to other commands,
such as previous/next hit and succh)
The other option I can think of is to send the above as separate lines
  SEARCH
  <book_identifier_no_or_string>
  <search_text>
which have to be combined by the documancer application
before the required task can be performed.
Presumably there is a much better way than this ...

Anyway, the next three weeks I am 100% busy with other stuff ...

Best regards,

Arnd