Re: [Tracker] [Fwd: Merging proposal: libtracker-miner]

[Ivan Frade <ivan frade gmail com>]

Hi

On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Carlos Garnacho <carlosg gnome org> wrote:

Forwarding with another mail address, let's see if this works...


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Carlos Garnacho <carlos lanedo com>
To: Tracker-List <tracker-list gnome org>
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:22:38 +0200
Subject: Merging proposal: libtracker-miner
Hi!

There has been ongoing development on the libtracker-miner branch to
develop a set of base objects for data miners, it has shifted much of
the tracker-miner-fs internals in there, and also aims to replace the
older indexer modules API. Here's an overview of changes:

libtracker-miner:

       TrackerMiner: This is an abstract base class for miners, does
       all the DBus stuff for free, and provides signals for
       pausing/resuming/status... but doesn't do much by itself. Also
       provides some control on commit, such as not doing so when
       paused, etc...

       TrackerMinerFS: TrackerMiner implementation (also abstract) for
       getting data from the filesystem. It does crawling, monitoring
       and mtime checks, and provides hooks for implementations to
       specify the behavior (what to crawl, how to discard, how to get
       the data, ...)

       TrackerMinerManager: not a miner, it's used by tracker-status
       and the applet to get information from, and manage miners
       status.

The tracker-miner-fs executable now implements 2 miners:

       TrackerMinerApplications: Replaces the applications module.

       TrackerMinerFiles: Replaces the files module, plus the generic
       metadata extraction functions.

Great! I guess this will be all the documentation available for the miners in quite some time :P

 

The tracker-applet is now on its way to be reimplemented (ATM it's
compiled in src/tracker-applet/tracker-status-icon), and provides
information about individual miners, you can see a screenshot at
http://www.lanedo.com/~carlos/tracker-status-icon.png

Yes, yes, yes, yes :)
 

So, I think that, even if it still has some rough edges, it could be
worth to merge in master for further development, what do you think? :)

An enthusiastic +1

Ivan