simple search api (was Re: mimetype standardisation by testsets)

[Bastian, Waldo]

John,

See the reference below to DBUS sessions. Doesn't DBUS have the ability
to inform any client about connects and disconnects of other clients to
the bus?

Cheers,
Waldo
 
Intel Corporation - Channel Platform Solutions Group - Hillsboro, Oregon

>-----Original Message-----
>From: xdg-bounces at lists.freedesktop.org [mailto:xdg-
>bounces at lists.freedesktop.org] On Behalf Of Jamie McCracken
>Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 6:12 AM
>To: Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen
>Cc: xdg at lists.freedesktop.org
>Subject: Re: simple search api (was Re: mimetype standardisation by
>testsets)
>
>Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote:
>
>>
>> Question 1 : Will it benefit the search engine to have a Session
object
>> for each connection? Then Query objects are spawned by a call like
>> Magnus suggest; Query = NewQuery(Session, query_string)? Is it
correct
>> that applications doesn't need to care about sessions - just gimme
the
>> goddam query! ? :-)
>
>In Dbus , there are no specific sessions exposed as such so Im not sure
>a "session" makes sense unless you are using P2P mode.
>
>We do need to close a live query to free up resources on the server but
>theres no way to automate that as AFAIK the server does not receive
>client disconnect signals - the shared bus is the connection and thats
>never released.
>
>>
>> Question 2 : Should the results be returned with the HitsAdded
signal?
>> The Query object then has a Query.GetResults method to retrieve the
>> results. This is closer to libbeagle and spotlight and the
application
>> only spends time retrieving hits when it really wants to. It does
>> introduce some extra method calls though...
>>
>
>Dunno. It depends on the extra traffic it generates - individual dbus
>calls may have an overhead of a ms or two so they could add up when
>returning large result sets (IE  1000 hits could cost you 1 or 2
seconds
>in socket latency alone). I think sending one hit per signal is
probably
>out of the question.
>
>If we batched up the results in packets of 10 or 20 (or some config
>setting) then it might be okay to do that.
>
>I would have to experiment with tracker to find the optimal packet size
>so maybe the packet size should be search engine specific.
>
>
>--
>Mr Jamie McCracken
>http://jamiemcc.livejournal.com/
>
>_______________________________________________
>xdg mailing list
>xdg at lists.freedesktop.org
>http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg