We need automatic database upgrade at startup. -D
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Maria Odea Ching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 from me too :) > > It has been a bit painful having separate indices for any-text and bytecode > searches. While we're on the verge of improving the indexing and search, we > should also consider how we would structure the index for easy integration > with IDEs (e.g. integration with m2eclipse, q4e/IAM, etc.). > > Thanks, > Deng > > On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> +1 >> >> I'd like the basic search to be more basic (ie, search all the fields at >> once), and the index to be consolidated. This is more inline with how it was >> built in 0.9. Then on top of that, weighting results appropriately to make >> it easier to find. Continuing to support Lucene search syntax is a good idea >> for those that want power from the quick search. >> >> Then the advanced search should be the flexible, descriptive way to search >> on specific fields via the UI without knowing the Lucene syntax. I think >> find artifact can be folded into that page now. >> >> I agree with pulling upstream repos indexes. I'd rather we do that via >> Archiva web services rather than taking whole index files so we can do an >> actual "diff" to apply efficiently. I don't know if Lucene has some native >> support for that already but we could do it via timestamped records. We >> should mark the source in the record so that searches can clarify they don't >> already reside locally. >> >> The above ties into the metadata proposal too - with plugins and metadata >> we can pull remote info on artifacts to consolidate information without >> having to sync all the artifacts themselves. So Lucene indexing is just one >> place that would use that, but it would be used by other plugins, reporting, >> etc. >> >> Cheers, >> Brett >> >> >> On 14/11/2008, at 8:40 AM, James William Dumay wrote: >> >> Hey guys, >>> As mentioned on IRC we all agreed that our search feature is a little >>> suboptimal. >>> >>> I would like to propose the following improvements: >>> * Search should be more like mvnrepository.com (showing codebase growth >>> etc). >>> * We should figure out a way of using up stream repository indexes to >>> improve search results. >>> * Advanced search needs a good rethink - we should probably use a filter >>> approach so that you could do bytecode: search results that include free >>> text search. >>> * UI improvements so that the user experience feels more intuitive. >>> >>> Discuss! >>> >>> James >>> >> >> -- >> Brett Porter >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ >> >> >
