On Apr 16, 2008, at 7:43 AM, jack_tanner yahoo.com
wrote:
> Will do, and thanks for your time and advice. I still
think it'd be
> nice if KS exposed such a similarity computation via
the API; it'd
> be much more efficient that way.
I agree, and I would have liked to have discussed that. Had
you not
been constrained by having to use the maint branch, I might
have
steered things in that direction.
A lot of best work on KS, both high-level design and
low-level code,
has arisen from collaborations between myself and someone
who has an
itch to scratch. I'm always on the lookout for such
potential partners.
In your case, though, my impression was that you were quite
knowledgeable, but that your project did not need the devel
branch
badly enough to guarantee sustained momentum over the course
of what
would likely be a drawn-out design discussion.
Exposing similarity measures would be superficially easy --
all the
relevant material is in KinoSearch::Search::Similarity.
However, the
actual APIs to interface with the math in Similarity are
internal and
not set up for use the way you described your needs. The
bigger
problems were how to get at "an indexed document",
how to list its
terms, and so on, outside of the context of the existing
search API.
Marvin Humphrey
Rectangular Research
http://www.rectangular.co
m/
_______________________________________________
KinoSearch mailing list
KinoSearch rectangular.com
http://www.rectangular.com/mailman/listinfo/kinosearch
|