Skip to main content.
home | support | download

Back to List Archive

Re: Re: SWISH++ 1.3 released

From: Dan Brickley <Daniel.Brickley(at)not-real.Bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Mon Nov 02 1998 - 17:41:39 GMT
One motivation for something like AutoSwish is that the person who
compiles the tool is not necessarily the ultimate manager of the indexes
within an organisation. Often there will be a number of different
websites in need of indexing, and the web site manager / editor will
probably be the best person to decide how often, which files etc get
indexed. And command line interfaces may not be the preferred mechanism
for doing this.

Personally I'm happier with the command line. But I don't think the
argument below holds water. The person who installs the indexer might
like to devolve index administration rather than make work for
him/herself...

Dan

On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Paul J. Lucas wrote:

> On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Earl Robinson wrote:
> 
> > Regarding new versions of Swish[-e|++].. Is anyone planning to move features
> > of swish++ into the swish-e codebase.
> 
> 	I'm not; I have no idea what other people's plans are.
> 
> > I want to use Swish++ with Autoswish.
> 
> 	(In what follows, preceed everything with "IMHO.")
> 
> 	I see no reason for AutoSWISH to exist (which is why I didn't
> 	write an equivalent for SWISH++).  It appears to be simply a
> 	web wrapper around SWISH-E to solve the problem of you having
> 	to RTFM to learn how to use the command-line options and config
> 	files.  (SWISH++ doesn't use config files so, in some sense,
> 	it's simpler to use.)  I don't consider that a worthy problem to
> 	be solved.
> 
> 	If you can download a tar file, untar it, set compilation
> 	options, tweak makefiles, and build and install the software,
> 	you presumeably have enough of the right background experience
> 	to be able to use SWISH++ via the command-line (or writing a
> 	simple makefile or cronjob to automate your own task).
> 
> 	The *searching* part needs custom web wrappers; the *indexing*
> 	part doesn't; or am I missing something?
> 
> 	- Paul
> 
> 	P.S.: SWISH++ users have submitted suggestions (and even
> 	patches in some cases!) for enhancements to SWISH++.  Nobody to
> 	date has written an AutoSWISH equivalent.  My conclusion is
> 	that it's not needed by the people whom SWISH++ is targeted at.
> 
> 
Received on Mon Nov 2 09:52:05 1998