> There are more things
> that needs to be done. I have some comments and questions:
>
> * Why are there special "index" classes
> (IndexData/DocumentData/ObjectData/AttachmentData) that are stored
> in the queue? Why not just store XWikiDocuments and (or
> DocumentModelBridge) and XWikiAttachments directly? This would seem
> to save memory (the documents must be loaded to be indexed anyway)
> and reduce the load on the database (when the documents are already
> loaded). Maybe the idea was that by looking up the document as late
> as possible we will get a fresh version of it, and duplicated
> requests for updating a document are filtered out in the queue. But
> to me this seem to be a rare situation, and the way this was
> implemented, there was a race condition so the document was likely
> to be added twice anyway.
>
> * There are some code to support multiple indices, but it doesn't seem
> to be used and I doubt that it works.
>
> * The code contains lots of "catch (Exception e)" clauses.
>
> * Also, how threads are synchronized should be thought of more
> carefully. It seems that the keyword "synchronized" have been
> thrown in at various places "just in case".
>
> * To complete the upgrade to Lucene 2.9.0 the deprecated methods and
> classes should be replaced. For instance the now deprecated Hits
> class should be replaced with TopDocuments.
>
> * The methods IndexWriter::isLocked and IndexWriter::unlock in lucene
> seems unreliable. This is an obstacle for XPLUCENE-33.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Andreas Jonsson
>
>
> Guillaume Lerouge wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Denis Gervalle <
[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Hi Vincent,
> >>
> >> 22 opens issues on the lucene plugins seems to me a lot to put it as a
> >> default.
> >> Of course, I'd really like to see most of them solved, but some seems
> >> to me blocker issue to put the lucene plugins as the default:
> >> XPLUCENE-5
> >> XPLUCENE-8
> >> XPLUCENE-13
> >> XPLUCENE-30
> >> XPLUCENE-33
> >> XPLUCENE-34
> >> XPLUCENE-35
> >> XPLUCENE-37
> >> XPLUCENE-40
> >>
> >> If search seems powerful (which the XWIki search is not), but is
> >> unreliable, I think that you will disappoint more than a less powerful
> >> but reliable solution (which the XWiki search is).
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I agree with Denis. We need to fix important bugs that make it unstable
> > before putting it as the default search.
> >
> > I'd really like if a developer could spend some time working on the
> Lucene
> > Plugin in the course of the 2.1 roadmap but so far it looks like we'll
> all
> > be busy on other things...
> >
> > Guillaume
> >
> > WDYT ?
> >
> >> Denis
> >>
> >> On Oct 26, 2009, at 21:00, Vincent Massol wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Should we make the lucene search the default search or not?
> >>> In the default XAR the Lucene search is marked as experimental. This
> >>> has been the case for a long time now.
> >>>
> >>> I think we need to do something about this. Do you think the Lucene
> >>> search is working well enough to be set as the default?
> >>>
> >>> WDYT?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> -Vincent
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> devs mailing list
> >>>
[hidden email]
> >>>
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> devs mailing list
> >>
[hidden email]
> >>
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
>
[hidden email]
>
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs>
