[Xesam] Need paged search mode for xesam

[Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen]

2008/5/7 Philip Van Hoof <spam at pvanhoof.be>:

>
> On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 16:29 +0200, Jos van den Oever wrote:
> > 2008/5/7 Jamie McCracken <jamie.mccrack at googlemail.com>:
> > >  we need ranges in order to search efficiently - having potentially
> > >  random hit IDs passe to that function means we cannot optimise (no
> way
> > >  to tell in advance if its a range)
> > >
> > >  Its so bad that we will add an extension GetPagedHits ourselves if no
> > >  one else wants it!
> >
> > You're seeing ghosts. It's trivial and very quick to check if a range
> > of numbers is sequential.
> > If it's sequential, you can use your optimized range function, if not,
> > get the hits one by one. For the later you need a function anyway.
> >
> > Adding a proprietary extension over such a non-issue is rather sad.
>
> Calling a discussed solution that we intent to move to spec as soon as
> possible proprietary because somebody does not want to utilise an
> extremely loosely specified hack that only works by accident*, is rather
> sad.
>
> I have better things to do with my time, really.
>
> * You had to explain the person who wrote the specification (right?)
>  that this is possible with his own specification, but he didn't know:
>

Is that person me? - I wrote the wiki pages, but the spec is community
consensus and have been discussed *at length* in the past. In any case Jos
an I agreed, there was just a moment of confusion. The strategy Jos
described is quite obvious if you know the spec. It has crossed my mind many
times.

There may be some justification in calling it a hack, but It is not exactly
a big hack. And we can make it a no-hack with a simple change in the
documentation of GetHitData.

> You wrote:
> > They are sequential. From the spec:

Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote:
> > Uhm, that was not the intention :-) The hit_ids argument is an
> > arbitrary array of hit ids, fx, [1, 7, 28].
>
> I don't know what your definition of writing a robust specification is,
> but this sure isn't my definition.
>
>
I don't know what you are trying to say with that. Can you elaborate?


Cheers,
Mikkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xesam/attachments/20080507/047fef67/attachment.html