Yes, good point. We discussed it already, and as far as I remember the conclusion was that it is a good idea. My issue with the XML implementation is its load time, and it requires a lot of memory for a big dictionary.
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Jörn Kottmann <[email protected]> wrote: > On 04/10/2013 03:46 PM, William Colen wrote: > >> Here I store the dictionary as a text file and encoding the dictionary is >> part of the build process, so it is easy to update the dictionary. >> Maybe we should create an API that supports multiple implementations, a >> default implementation can use JWNL, which is already available. We can >> create other implementations in the sandbox as optional packages. >> > > What about using our dictionary package for this? Couldn't we extend it > somehow that different > dictionary implementations are supported? > > Jörn >
