Simple search API proposal, take 2
magnus.bergman at observer.net
Fri Jan 19 04:14:14 PST 2007
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:54:03 +0100
Jean-Francois Dockes <jean-francois.dockes at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Magnus Bergman writes:
> > On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 08:41:10 +0100
> > Jean-Francois Dockes <jean-francois.dockes at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > > I think that the sequence number can be kept implicit:
> > >
> > > Query (in s query_string, out i query_handle)
> > > GetHitProperties ( in s query_handle, in i offset, in i
> > > limit, in as properties, out (sequence of maps)
> > > response )
> > What you call "offset" is exactly what I meant by "sequence
> > number", if I didn't misunderstand something. The alternative
> > (really keeping it implicit) would be to completely leave it out
> > and just return the bunch of hits (much like how read(2) works.
> > But that would also require a function similar to lseek(2), so I
> > guess it wouldn't be simpler anyway.
> What I mean by:
> GetHitProperties ( in s query_handle, in i offset, in i limit,
> in as properties, out (sequence of maps) response);
> is: return "limit" hits starting from offset "offset". This is a
> combined lseek/read call.
> I propose that the hit numbers should be implicit *in the response*.
> We know that it contains an ordered list of hits from number "offset"
> to "offset+limit-1", so I think that there is no point in repeating
> the hit number for every entry, as would (in your words): "A map
> mapping each hit (sequence number) to a map of property-list of
> values pairs"
I was referring to how it would be handled by the search engine
(instead of having an opaque identifier for each hit). To include the
sequence/index numbers in the result didn't cross my mind. In other
words, we seem to agree completely on this.
More information about the xdg