Laying QuickSearch to rest
gerv at mozilla.org
Sat Feb 14 11:48:31 UTC 2004
Andreas Franke wrote:
> not sure whether my I am supposed to participate
> in this thread, but in case you care, here it goes...
Of course you are :-) I just thought you'd gone.
> If the primary goal is still met (and having either
> SimpleSearch or Myk's full text search on the front
> page instead would seem to satisfy it), then replacing
> QuickSearch on the front page is fine with me.
OK. I think we should do that, then. I believe Myk's search is more
single-box Google-like, and therefore better fits the criteria for what
we want on the front page.
> If I did not misunderstand him, at least Bradley seems
> to agree with me about the second goal of having a
> powerful search textbox readily available for advanced
> users. So if there is a replacement that is (almost)
> as powerful as quicksearch, then I'm also fine with
> moving quicksearch to contrib, for example.
So we move a fulltext search box to the front page, and work on
extending it with other QuickSearch-like syntax. In the mean time, we
leave QuickSearch where it is until that's done. Sound good?
> I think the lack of integration is a consequence of
> that the way to solve this was to port it to perl.
> I don't think that I should be blamed that this
> never got checked in despite of a perl implementation
> being available at http://mozilla.flowerday.cx since
> 2002-05-22 (see comments #27, #28 and #76 in bug 70907).
Yes - there's no blame attached to you for this not happening. We suck.
> The alternative path suggested in this discussion seems
> full text search perl tool, and then extend that with
> the perl-equivalent of quicksearch in a more intuitive
That sounds like a good plan to me.
> That's true. And in all probability I won't be able to
> devote much time to it in the future either. The other
> question is, what would you expect from a maintainer?
> The last patches I submitted have been lying around
> since 2001-10-04 (fix #1, bug 102618, comment #6; ok
> there is even a better fix available by now),
> and 2002-11-21 (bug 107860, comment #8).
<looks> Again, we suck.
> I doubt very
> much that this discussion is meant to encourage me to
> send all kinds of review requests to various developers.
Actually, I guess it has sat around because no-one was asked to review
it. Ah, well. No use crying over spilt milk.
More information about the developers