Re: [htdig-dev] Tow proposals for Improving the size and reliability of the WordDB

[Geoff H. <ghu...@ws...>]

On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Gilles Detillieux wrote:

> Sounds like an excellent idea to me.  I'm rather surprised they didn't do
> that in mifluz already (or is something like this in the newer code?).

OK, so to make this clear, there's a difference between mifluz (which is
more backend) and the way we use it. We can set whatever key specification
we want to mifluz. So we currently use a key specification like:

word // doc id // location // flags

Now we should also remember that Loic was essentially the *only* mifluz
developer.

>         I'm kind of being conservative.  Based on the total lack of
> recent progress in mifluz, the very quite mailing list, and the much
> smaller user base I have some worries about just how good the new mifluz
> code is.

Keep in mind that the version of htword/mifluz we're using is 0.13. I know
for *certain* there are bugs in it, and reading the ChangeLog for mifluz,
I know they're not just in the compression code. Keep in mind that there
are some fairly decent regression tests for mifluz. I don't see inactivity
on development as necessarily indicative of stability! (Otherwise, I'd
really worry about bugs whenever I use LaTeX.)

The problems with the merge were due to differences in the mifluz
*interfaces* (and my lack of free time to do the merge) as well as Loic's
disappearance. I haven't had to do significant changes to the mifluz code,
which does pass regression tests.

I performed the merge outside the CVS tree so that we _can_ get testing of
reliability. But this is completely distinct about how to handle _our_
key/record implementation.

-Geoff