> > > 1º Why need I pass a Directory objecto (obligatory) on constructor of > > SpellChecker? > > > > Mainly because it is a nasty peice of code. But it does a good job. >
Thanks. How can we suggest it (create an normal constructor without param) to the team? > > > 2º Suposse that in my dictonary I had these words: > > > > "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" > > "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" > > "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" > > > > I just want to know how can I code something to "suggest" when user > > query > > "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" the application suggest: > > "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" > > "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" > > > > It is possible just using the Lucene? > > > > There are no typos in your example so you really don't even need a spell > checker for that. Using OR clauses in your query would be enough. I guess no, because user will enter : "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" ... and the system should response with: Similar: The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring I can't see how can I do that? (just using the OR statement) For example: name like '%the%' or name like '%Lord%' or name like '%of%' or name like '%the%' or name like '%Rings%' will produce so much results besides to be non-performatic... Perhaps you want to combine one variant with MUST clauses that has a bit > more boost than the OR clauses. > > karl Thanks so much Karl!!!
