> Yes, and rightfully so - it didn't handle properly some query types, so you > would actually get wrong results.
That's bad! > "roll your own (and contribute it back!)" if you are more advanced ;) Wouldn't "roll your own" basically mean resurrecting the previous implementation of MultiSearcher? Ie, what would be different? On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Andrzej Bialecki <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6/10/11 12:10 AM, Jason Rutherglen wrote: >> >> Right, if that's not around, one needs to use multi searcher, that's >> gone too? > > Yes, and rightfully so - it didn't handle properly some query types, so you > would actually get wrong results. > > For now the answer is "use Solr" if you are less advanced, or "roll your own > (and contribute it back!)" if you are more advanced ;) > > -- > Best regards, > Andrzej Bialecki <>< > ___. ___ ___ ___ _ _ __________________________________ > [__ || __|__/|__||\/| Information Retrieval, Semantic Web > ___|||__|| \| || | Embedded Unix, System Integration > http://www.sigram.com Contact: info at sigram dot com > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
