Re: Nautilus/Medusa search index enhancements

["Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)" <amadorm usm edu ec>]

Curtis Hovey wrote:

> > Medusa should be signaled by autorun whenever a drive is inserted, or 
> > by 'dynamic' where a volume is hotplugged - the whole idea being that Medusa 
> > should detect mounts and act accordingly
> > Medusa should start indexing files if it's a new volume or begin monitoring 
> > files there for changes. 
> >    
>
> We need to reconcile that medusa is now a user application.  Each user
> would need their own preferences.
WHAT?  Medusa isn't a search daemon anymore?  Then the whole idea I had 
crumbles to pieces!
Who decided Medusa should change into a user-level application?  How are 
you going to build a NFS server index now?

> I believe it has from the start.  You can configure which file systems
> to not index.  What it doesn't support it multiple roots for an index,
> requiring users to create many indexes.
No way.  The idea was that the user DIDN'T have to configure anything at 
all.  That the user could rely on Medusa to smartly choose whether to 
index a remote file server or contact another Medusa server there to 
return search results.

> > (*) FAM delegates file monitoring to remote FAMs. When FAM cannot connect to a 
> > remote NFS FAM server, it falls back to standard dnotify. This behavior can be 
> > mimicked in Medusa-searchd. To prevent failed file accesses, removable media 
> > search results wouldn't be returned to the client search service.
> >    
> FAM will be useful when preforming incremental indexes.
Wrong.  FAM is a file notification daemon.  You really expect the search 
daemon locally to ask FAM to monitor EVERY file in the file server? 
That's not possible.

> > Medusa-searchd in the NFS server should accept remote connections if the NFS 
> > server is up
> >    
> Medusa-searchd doesn't exist in medusa-2.0.
Yes.  Now it's useless.

> > I have the feeling that a couple of changes in Medusa would render its 
> > usability much greater than the current prospect. I bet if this gets worked 
> > upon, even the KDE people would get around to using it. Remember how ugly and 
> > slow the search box in KDE is. And another thing: it's slower than Windows' 
> > file search tool. KDE already takes advantage of SGI FAM. Medusa could be the 
> > search service everyone expected.
> >    
>
> While that would be great, KDE is prejudiced towards C++.
So?  Don't we have a library they can wrap?

> At this time, getting Medusa to work with Nautilus is the first
> priority--The user level indexes do not work with nautilus, which still
> looks for the old medusa-searchd.
Who's in charge of Medusa now?