You are (both) quite right.. this is easily implemented in
the swish program. My "real" objection is to having more
command line options. There are quite a few of them now
and most (all?) are single letters. We are quickly running
out of "obvious" switch letters. Before adding any more into
the general distribution why don't we come up with a simple
way to name new command line switches so they are not
running into each other.
As I recall there were two options that went with this paging
feature: the number of items on a page and the number of pages
(or what is lines?) to skip. How about renaming the option
switches to "-output:skiplines <x>" and "-output:maxlines <y>"
or something like that. The idea is that "output:" sets up a related
context for all of the paging options. (Maybe "report:" or just
"paging:" makes more sense, but you get the idea.)
I am responsible for adding a few new switches myself and I
chose single letters, so I'm part of the part of the problem too.
A little naming convention might do the trick.
At 11:35 AM 1/22/99 -0800, Valerio Gelpi wrote:
>On 22 Jan 99, at 11:10, Mark Gaulin wrote:
>> Hi Roy
>> Given that swish has to do a complete search no matter how many
>> items are to be reported with the results, it does seem like a feature
>> that does not need to be inside the swish program itself.
>> The perl program (or whatever) just has to skip a certain number of
>> lines before dumping and the stop parsing lines when the output page has
>> the desired number of lines. These would be nice additions to the
>> standard swish perl cgi interface. Where is that kept on the swish site?
>> I see that autoswish is no longer there, but I did not think that the
>> "vanilla" perl cgi script was part of that...
>Hello Mark and Roy,
>I agree that you could handle this feature from the Perl script itself, but
>because it is so easy to add to the Swish program itself and it seems like a
>natural feature for a web search program, I think it should be implemented
>inside Swish. On top of that, performance would probably benefit if the
>program, rather than a Perl script, performs the task, mostly when the
>returned recordset is big.
>Look forward to yours and others opinion.
Received on Fri Jan 22 11:55:44 1999