At 01:26 pm 01/22/1999 -0800, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>Huu ? You mean it's worth to add such codes in the program
>just because you can't ignore x lines and then print y ones in
>the front-end ?
>I don't see what's hard....
>That's why I don't think it's worth to put it in the code...
>it's a task typical and trivial for the front end...
Sorry, it's not that I can't (you're right it is just a little more work)
but because it would be 1 --> easier from an end-user perspective and 2 -->
less processor intensive.
Point 2 is my highest priority. Eliminating the need for the additional
processing by the front end makes a large difference as you dig deeper into
the search results. Without this option, I don't feel that I can implement
paging on my site because it doesn't scale well.
>That's exactly what you are getting : more command lines option,
>more lines codes in the core program for something not realy related
>and that is much simpler in the front-end...
I feel that the cost of adding a single command-line option and possibly
10-15 lines of code to the source is outweighed by the decrease in
processing cost and the increase in ease-of use for interface builders.
Also, as far as I can see, it is just as easy (possibly easier) to
implement in swish-e as it is in the front end.
I guess that my main arguments are:
- it makes my life, the life of my WPP administrator, and probably most
interface writers easier.
- it's relatively easy and not costly to implement in the swish-e code
- the semantics of command-line options can be resolved (see other thread)
- and finally, it is an option: you don't have to use it if you don't want to.
>I guess that I will have to post a front-end somewhere... just
>give me a little time to write the doc...
That would be nice for those users with no clue how or no time to write a
front end. It's something that's sorely missing from the current release.
Received on Fri Jan 22 14:01:54 1999