simple search api (was Re: mimetype standardisation by testsets)
fabrice.colin at gmail.com
Sun Nov 26 09:30:07 EET 2006
On 11/24/06, Jean-Francois Dockes <jean-francois.dockes at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Here follow my impressions after reading the Wasabi Draft document.
> Ok, enough for now, my only hope here is to restart thinking about the
> query language.
I have given some thought to this over the weekend and here's what I reckon.
We do need a simple text string-based query language.
The way I see it, the main goal of Wasabi is to allow to plug any
system into existing applications (file managers, toolkits' file
cataloguing software, etc...). These applications typically only have
a basic search
user interface, i.e. a text field and maybe some knobs that can be tweaked.
Once we have sorted out the dbus interface, these apps will only have to make
a couple of method calls and pass the string entered by the user. We
should try to
make it as easy as possible to run searches; any parsing/formatting
on the part of these apps will add complexity. The more complex it is,
the less widely
it will be adopted.
Since most end-users are familiar with the query format supported by popular
Web engines, we should go for something similar.
Leo mentioned Lucene's query language. While I agree we should avoid tying
anything to a particular search toolkit, a subset of that query language might
make sense. If need be, an ABNF grammar would remove ambiguities.
On the other hand, I agree with Jean-Francois that a more powerful
is better in the medium to long term. I don't know which is the most
I think a dual approach, as proposed on the second draft, makes sense.
More information about the xdg