Oliver and Jim, If you two could test the latest out, I'd appreciate. Especially any performance issues, if possible. I'm trying to be sure I haven't turned this into a N^2 type problem again. If so, I'll need to re-open the JIRA and fix the Index class to handle case sensitivity.
The problem is two fold: (a) We tried to fix case sensitivity in 1.5.2 for the Dictionary class. This was fixed; however, as damage the DictionaryNameFinder also was still broken. (b) I tried to fix the DictionaryNameFinder.... woops, I refactored incorrectly. Unfortunately, you two are but a few that use the DictionaryNameFinder. Thanks for your patience, testing and posting to the list. The original code.. I understand a bit more now was looking in the Index for words that were in the dictionary to help determine if we should be trying to add more tokens. I misunderstood this in my refactoring to take out the Index due to its lack of case sensitivity settings. I can see clearly now my mistakes. The code currently in SVN trunk has sort-of a compromise until we get the Index working again properly with case sensitivity. It contains code that will keep trying longer token entries as long as the current length is less than the maximum held in the dictionary. This allows the DictionaryNameFinder's find() method to work; but, we have a small performance penalty due to the way the find() method isn't caring what words it adds to the token strings. I'm going to look at possible solutions to getting the Index working again properly with the DictionaryNameFinder... but, it will take some time. Thanks, James On 3/16/2012 1:24 PM, Jim - FooBar(); wrote: > Hey Oliver, > > yes that is exactly the point...it does work for 1.5.2 (even though > case-sensitivity is not to be trusted) but it doesn't work for the > latest svn code which does case sensitivity properly...thanks for > confirming... James has already been notified... > > Jim > > > On 16/03/12 14:58, Oliver Cromm wrote: >> I just happened to test this functionality with the 1.5.2 version, >> and I can confirm that "Barack Obama" was found, whether or not >> "Barack" is also present in the dictionary. > >
