[MTOS-dev] Proposal: XSearch (Was: Re: proposals and changes protocol?)

[Timothy Appnel]

Yesterday the topic of this proposal came up at the tail end of
yesterday's ProNet call. I wanted to clarify a few things were I think
I wasn't clear in that discussion and in offlist conversations with
others.

The intention is for this framework to be part of the core and not as
a plugin. If it were better suited as a plugin then I would just
continue developing it on my own -- perhaps making it more accessible
by putting it in to Google Code. It already has an Artistic License.

Jay Allen mentioned that the proposal is too long. I agree. XSearch
and a few others I could (and probably will submit) are base existing
code I've written over the years. XSearch was started back in 2004 and
has been evolved over the years. I had a lot of detail and insight to
offer that, while subject to changing or being thrown out in the
spirit of community, I thought it was important to offer. No sense
making the same mistakes twice if it can be avoided. Let me reiterate
that the proposal doesn't entirely reflect the current state of the
code. I changed/fixed some things that I need to make, but haven't
gotten the time to do.

Byrne asked me on the call if it is compatible with how MT works today
and I said mostly that there where some breaks. That isn't a true
statement really as I was conflating MT-Plus with XSearch. XSearch
does include or be tied to a specific search engine implementation.
The existing XSearch proposal *should* be able to support the existing
MT search and if it doesn't that is a flaw. MT-Plus broke from how
MT's built-in search because I wanted something a little different
from my work. Namely combined results from multiple blogs.

Hope that clarifies things.

<tim/>

-- 
Timothy Appnel
Appnel Solutions
http://appnel.com/