topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • Thursday March 28, 2024, 6:38 pm
  • Proudly celebrating 15+ years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Poll

What New Major Feature is Most Important for you in Find and Run Robot?

Indexing for Faster Search
28 (57.1%)
Plugin Support for Custom Addins
17 (34.7%)
Other / Don't Care
4 (8.2%)

Total Members Voted: 49

Last post Author Topic: What New Major Feature is Most Important for you in Find and Run Robot?  (Read 19250 times)

d4ni

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Why indexing? I find the fact you do not index right now great. It's always up to date. Also, it's super fast so I don't really see a reason to implement an index. If you do so, please keep the option to search real-time :)

TucknDar

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,133
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Yes, while before I thought indexing was a good idea, I'm not so sure now. FARR is pretty lightning fast, so probably not so important. And now there's plugin support I suppose this poll is pretty outdated

JoTo

  • Super Honorary
  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 236
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Please go away with Indexing! Never ever implement it in FARR please!

Thx
JoTo

nitrix-ud

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • default avatar
  • Posts: 560
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
yes i agree, indexing IS a good idea but only if optionnal when used in a dosearch command
FARR does work great without it... it's always up to date...

it could also be done with an better integration of locate32 (better that using a plugin)

just my 0.02 euros

cheers, Nitrix

f0dder

  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,153
  • [Well, THAT escalated quickly!]
    • View Profile
    • f0dder's place
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
I wouldn't want to see indexing in FARR, but I wouldn't mind better integration with locate32... and those two things are quite different in scope, really. Also, it would be nifty if FARR cached it's results (along with filesystem change notification)... yes, Windows FS Cache does an OK job, but FARR native caching would still be better.
- carpe noctem

Josh

  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Points: 45
  • Posts: 3,411
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
If we are going to use indexing (in any manner), it should be built in. Requiring the install of a third party program to use a feature in the primary program is bad, in my opinion.

Lashiec

  • Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 2,374
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
I couldn't care less for indexing, considering that Locate32 is a keystroke away. Unicode support, and a redesign of the preferences screen (tree-based, please) would be welcomed though, right now I have to 'hunt' checkboxes one by one, no good. And some polish here and there.

herojoker

  • Participant
  • Joined in 2008
  • *
  • Posts: 124
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
A redesign of the preferences screen wouldn't even be so difficult:
If you save the configuration with each option formatted like
category.subcategory.subsubcategory.option=value
it's quite simple to build a tree. Another file could hold the actual labels.
Furthermore the program code will become a bit more readable :)

f0dder

  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,153
  • [Well, THAT escalated quickly!]
    • View Profile
    • f0dder's place
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
If we are going to use indexing (in any manner), it should be built in. Requiring the install of a third party program to use a feature in the primary program is bad, in my opinion.
It should be implemented with a plugin, and preferably based on locate32. Why? Because locate32 does a pretty good job, and there's no reason for reinventing the wheel.

But it should be done as a full plugin, the current locate32 plugin which calls locate.exe isn't 100% optimal, and sometimes hangs a bit.
- carpe noctem

kartal

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 1,529
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Explorer integration maybe? This could make alias creation easier most likely.