Hi James, James Carlson ??: > chenpu writes: > >> James Carlson ??????: >> >>> Yong Sun writes: >>> >>> >>>> I may not get your points, as my understanding, the documents (in SGML >>>> format, or html format, or any formats could be handled by Lucene) are >>>> parsed and processed in an off-line manner, which would not run on the >>>> server. >>>> >>>> >>> What processes these files, and what assumptions does it make? >>> >>> >> There are some scripts to parse the source SGML file and generate index >> files. Those SGML are from IPG(doc team) and G11n(localized documents) >> directly. Since this case is just for client app, I did not list them in >> the one pager. >> > > Is the DTD used there a public interface? >
> >>> Is this project related to "Sun i-Runbook" (maybe a replacement)? >>> >>> >> No. >> >>> Is Lucene delivered in a way that others can use it? Should it be? >>> >>> >> Lucene will not be use on server side. That means it will not be >> delivered to Opensolaris. >> > > I'm confused. Do you mean to say that it won't be used on either the > client or the server? If so, then why is it part of this case? (Or > is it no longer part of this case?) > > (Maybe the above should say "will be used on the server side" rather > than "will not be use on server side" ... but I'm lost.) > Sorry, it's a typo. Lucene will only be used on server side. ;-) > >>> Can users set up their own servers or is that a "Sun only" operation? >>> I would expect that to be a hard requirement for many customers, as >>> allowing direct Internet access from within a datacenter is still not >>> possible in many places. >>> >>> >> It's a "Sun only" operation for setting up Web Server. You know the >> volumes for contents are big, it's impossible to put them into client >> app for off-line review. >> > > That makes the architecture even less obvious to me. > > >>> How does the user specify where he gets his information (which server >>> to use)? >>> >>> >> The server info will be hard coded into the client app. >> > > Oh. > > >>> I still don't quite see how the proposed project is "obvious" enough >>> to be a fast-track. Why not run a full case for it? >>> >>> >> Thanks for the suggestion, James. Can you help to be sponsor for this >> case? Or we can get somebody's help on this? >> > > Your fast-track sponsor should have helped out with the process, and > directed you to a 1-pager. > > I'm derailing this case because it doesn't appear to be a fast-track > in scope, and I'm finding out too much in bits and pieces; a meeting > would be more productive. > > That means it's now a full case and (at least by tradition) I'm the > case owner. (If you prefer a different owner, that'd be fine by me; > just look at the member list for any ARC and select someone you > prefer.) > > The next step for you is to check the PSARC agenda and decide when you > could be ready for a review. When you decide, send email to > psarc-agenda at sac.sfbay to schedule the review. Your materials will > normally need to be ready one week in advance of that date, but that > can be altered if necessary. (It's not clear to me that your current > materials are complete; we seem to be lacking scope information.) > > The current schedule has a lack of meetings until January 14th. The > usual rule is to "ARC early," but if there are schedule problems > because of this unusual situation, I'm sure we can work around that by > scheduling an extra meeting date. Contact the PSARC chair to do that > or to work around other scheduling issues (such as time-of-day). > > Thanks for the infos. We will have a discussion on this and get back to you. Regards, Jeffrey
