Maybe so, but I think the confusion is more likely to come from an
anticipated performance level based (in this case) on previous
experiences with other languages, without really truly understanding
your chosen language in question (in this case PHP)
I would not say you NEED to know all limitations and performance
implications of languages you use, but at least have a base idea. I
think this is taken as red in the manual in some places and therefore
does not need to be stipulated, as the issues in my opinion are at a
lower level than the ZF?
Saying that, the manual does have a section on performance issues, so
maybe there is something in there? I do agree with you though to help
new users it may be worth adding "Limitations" and "Goals" as you
suggest, then people wont be forced to read not very well balanced
articles, but instead hear it straight from the horses mouth so to
speak.
Dan
2009/11/11 Matthew Ratzloff <m...@builtfromsource.com>:
> Yes, but there's no "limitations" or "goals" section in the ZSL
> documentation to give people a clear picture of what they can
> reasonably expect or what the use cases are. I think this causes
> unnecessary confusion.
>
> -Matt
>
> On Wednesday, November 11, 2009, Daniel Latter <dan.lat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I got the impression that the author used ZL and expected to get the same
>> performance result akin to using Java. This is where my flawed argument
>> comes in. There is no reference to the fundamental difference between the
>> languages and the performance differences this yields, I am not even talking
>> about ZL, it's about the fundamental aspects of the two languages.
>> On 10 Nov 2009, at 21:37, Matthew Ratzloff
>> <m...@builtfromsource.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
>> 'm...@builtfromsource.com');>> wrote:
>>
>> I guess I don't see how comparing the two is "totally flawed". You should
>> compare solutions for the dimensions that matter to your use case--in the
>> case of large indices, performance will undoubtedly be one of those
>> dimensions. I had a similar experience with Zend_Search_Lucene and
>> concluded that Apache Solr was orders of magnitude more suitable to
>> enterprise solutions.
>>
>> For a blog or small index, Zend_Search_Lucene is fine, however. That's not
>> to disparage it in any way. PHP is just not well-suited for these kinds of
>> things.
>>
>> -Matt
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Daniel Latter
>> <dan.lat...@gmail.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'dan.lat...@gmail.com');>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, it compares PHP to Java which
>> In itself is totally flawed, but I'm sure more smarter people will
>> articluate this better than me. So hold tight.
>>
>>
>> On 16 Oct 2009, at 05:18, ctx2002 <ctx2...@gmail.com <javascript:_e({},
>> 'cvml', 'ctx2...@gmail.com');>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> i try use zend lucene as my site search engine, then i have found this
>> article,
>>
>> http://dadabase.de/weblog/archives/2009/07/22/recommendation-dont-use-zend-php-lucene.
>>
>> can any one say something about that article?
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/zend-lucene-tp25919568p25919568.html
>> Sent from the Zend Framework mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
