Thanks for the reply. I understand completely about not including
it if there is no interest in it. I had trouble getting an earlier 3.2 beta
to compile and run (before I tried to monkey with the code) and got pulled
off the project for other things. I do hope to be able to work on a 3.2
patch at some point and I'll pass it along, "just in case" the feature seems
interesting to anyone else.
We had given the wrapper idea some consideration, but it seemed
cleaner (and actually pretty easy) to include it in ht://Dig -- there may
have been some problems that I don't remember with the wrapper approach.
At any rate, thanks for keeping ht://Dig moving forward.
-David
==========================
The views, opinions, and judgments expressed are solely my own. Message
contents have not been reviewed or approved by AARP.
-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Hutchison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 12:05 PM
To: Williams, David A. (DAWilliams)
Cc: Htdig Dev List (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [htdig-dev] progress towards 3.1.6
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Williams, David A. (DAWilliams) wrote:
> I'm sorry to be late to the party with this. If there is any chance
> that my forced results patch might be included in 3.1.6, I need to point
out
> the one bone-headed bug I've run across in it. This section (for
htMerge):
I haven't heard many requests for this sort of feature. And while it's
interesting, my inclination is to aim for the smallest necessary changes
in the production branch. So I'd hesitate to include an optional database
like this. (It's not that your code looks bad on a read-through, but there
may be unforseen bugs.)
So I would point it towards the 3.2 branch as a possibility.
I'm also not sure if this could be better done with a wrapper around
htsearch and a separate CGI to retrieve your "suggested links" (even
something in Perl would seem to work well).
-Geoff
_______________________________________________
htdig-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/htdig-dev
