Re: Cluechaining and Original Clues

Hi all,

Coming back to an oldish email because of some behaviour I've noticed
today while playing with Dashboard.  At this stage when cluechaining
occurs, the old Clues are thrown out and replaced by a brand new
CluePacket containing only the new chained Clues.

On Sun, 2003-12-21 at 05:41, Jim McDonald wrote:

> Okay, so from that I'd say that the backends should either receive a
> single cluepacket with all of the chained clues, or multiple
> cluepackets each with their own separate set of clues.  The current
> system of sending multiple cluepackets with overlapping sets of clues
> seems to be redundant.

Yes and no.  The reason for adding new clues to the CluePacket and 
resending it is if new information becomes available for a backend
that uses several Clues.  An example of this is backend-foaf.cs
which uses both the rdfurl and foafid Clues to find useful information.

It just happens that at the moment they both are created by 
backend-htmlchainer while looking at content, but that doesn't have
to be the case.

I was just looking through the logs of running Dashboard, and noticed
a possible option would be to find dates, and then look for Tasks and
Calendar entries on that date for full_name and/or nicknames.

Or files modified on that date which have matching keywords.

> > Of course, there's nothing concrete about the design, and if anyone
> > comes up with a better, more elegant way to deal with it, we'll run with
> > it.
> Well we can either make chainers separate from backends, where the
> cluepacket goes through all chainers before it goes to the backends,
> or we can leave things as they are but then make cluechainers strip
> out the original clues.

In my opinion cluechainers should only ever add Clues.  I actually
like this idea of running chainers first.  But, what happens when 
chainers use the output of other chainers?

Also, what about backend-addressbook?  It both chains new clues, and
produces results.  Breaking it into two modules is an option, but 
there'll be a lot of shared code...

> > As for duplicates, I think they're fine.  There was supposed to be a
> > result filtering class which would remove duplicates and cull out
> > results with lower relevances.
> I still think that straight duplicates are a waste of time and
> effort.  Most backends don't keep their own cache, so especially for
> network-heavy backends this could be a severe waste of resources as we
> up the number of cluechainers and backends.

There's already checks to make sure that duplicate Clue's aren't added
to a CluePacket.  And there used to be a check to make sure that no
duplicate HTML snippets were displayed - this doesn't appear to work

With regards to backends duplicating work, I think the base class
should probably be extended to contain a cache.  That way those
backends that will make use of the additional Clues can, those
that don't, well, don't do any extra work.


Andrew Ruthven, Wellington, New Zealand
Senior Systems Engineer, Connections Inc Ltd -->
At CIL:  puck connections net nz
At Home: andrew etc gen nz

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]