Geoff Hutchison writes:
>
> As a slightly better work-around, we could change the Word() method
> to allow an optional DocID parameter for the AddDescription call.
> This method would just use the DocID as a temporary matter.
I advocate against this because it will not go in the good direction.
Separating the word insertion context and the word insertion function is,
IMHO, very important.
> On a related subject, we're going to need to go through the Retriever
> class with a fine-toothed comb. It works, but I'm a bit worried about
> a number of issues like those mentioned:
>
> 1) It hasn't really changed since 3.1.x--up until this week, it would
> still call MarkScanned, MarkGone, etc.
> 2) The got_word method should just take a WordRecord flag instead of
> all this mess with the factor[] array.
> 3) The URL validation doesn't check a URL against the server's
> robots.txt information.
>
Very good to know that. I asked two month ago if there was a repository
for tasks and I remember you told me that the bug reporting was only used
for interaction between developpers and users. Would it be possible/easy to
set a separate database to store that kind of stuff ? I.e. your three points
become an entry and we can add more when we think about them even if we
don't have time to implement. It would be 100% better than sending them
on the list since retrieving an item like is likely to be a pain for
any developper not watching at the time the message is send.
Cheers,
--
Loic Dachary
ECILA
100 av. du Gal Leclerc
93500 Pantin - France
Tel: 33 1 56 96 09 80, Fax: 33 1 56 96 09 61
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.senga.org/
------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the htdig3-dev mailing list, send a message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the single word "unsubscribe" in
the SUBJECT of the message.
