At 08:36 AM 09/28/01 -0700, SRE wrote:
>At 02:32 PM 9/27/01, Bill Moseley wrote:
>>The main question is: Should swish-e be spilt into separate indexing and
>I did that... back in 1.3.2 or thereabouts. Here's the Makefile comment:
Right. There's sill the "swish-search", but it doesn't comment out much
code anymore (if any?). So much of swish-e has been rewritten. So
swish-search and swish-e are the same size.
It probably doesn't matter that much (for size reasons). Say we could save
1M of binary size. Even with no sharing and running 20 Apache child
processes it's only 20M, which is probably not enough to worry about.
># Added new "swish-search" target with INDEX_READ_ONLY, fixed CFLAGS passing
># (removes code to WRITE index files, for more secure searching)
># SRE 11/17/99
>The search version is incapable of writing files, specifically to
>satisfy my sysadmin's security concerns. Don't know if it was
>preserved in newer releases, but it SHOULD BE.
Yes, you can tell your sysadmin that there's a swish-search version that
can't write to the index files.
At the top of the indexing and merge routines:
if ( params->index_read_only )
progerr("Sorry, this program is in readonly mode");
And params->index_read_only is set when called as swish-search. But that's
all it does.
Received on Fri Sep 28 16:45:11 2001