Re: [subscriptions] Re: spice-netserve is now in componenthaus (and spice-threadpool)

Mike Hogan wrote:
> 
> So by component you mean implementation of an interface?
>

I tend to mean a set of interfaces (one or more) *and* their implementation.

> Fully agree.  I want to do this.  Will do it in fact, when I get time.
> Right now I am working on handling dependencies.

ok

>>I think the level of granularity down to the methods on a high-level
>>search is probably a bit too much (esp. when the components grow in
>>number).
> 
> 
> I am not yet sure of this.  The first iteration of CH was like this - the
> unit of indexing and searching was the component (interface) itself.  But I
> changed to methods for two reasons:
> 
>  * There is an awful lot of javadoc on methods.  It would be shame to not
> make use of it.
>  * Playing around with CH leads me to believe its methods people are really
> interested in.
> 
> So I think it would be smart to consider continuing the methods experiment a
> little further.  And if the number of comps grows, lets allow the search
> engine come back with the best matches.
> 
> I do plan to return to indexing components themselves i.e. the javadoc at
> the top of an interface.  So when you do a search, you will get back a list
> containing a mixture of components and methods, with the most relevant ones
> at the top.  Hopefully.
> 
> One last thing - search operates on interfaces only right now.  This is up
> for debate though as we see how things play out during real use.  I expect
> some implementation related info will have to be made use of, but not sure
> what yet.

I was not suggesting you abandon indexing the methods, simply that when 
some text in the method signature and/or javadoc is hit it should point
to the interface rather than the list of methods.
The method list can then be shown if the user clicks on the interface 
link to expand the view.

> >>So something like this on the search results
>>
>>Interface Components
>>
>>ConnectionManager (link)        Netserve   (link, download, etc)
> 
> 
> I fully agree that there needs to be a relationship from interface to
> implementations.  But, following on from I said above, I am not certain that
> presenting this info on the search results page is quite right.  I think it
> makes sense for a user to first locate a component or method he is
> interested in.  "Find me something to copy a file" he says to himself.  Then
> he gets ranked results back - of interfaces.  Then he investigates each
> result to see what impls are available, and makes a choice.

you could present a "preview" of the interface methods that have "hit" 
the search.  I think grouping them by interface would be more useful.

Cheers