695
« Last post by Josh on June 22, 2011, 06:17 PM »
This is a feature that I have been bugging, much similar to my months of personally pestering mousey on IRC for the filesystem navigation in FARR, for. Database indexing can be a very beneficial feature for FARR if done correctly. Now, for my feedback on the associated options presented by our administrator.
The option to have each search option as a plugin written by users is good but I do not feel it should be the first option for implementation. There should be a core, integrated, feature in FARR simply due to the nature of plugins. Plugins tend to be developed and once the author loses interest, go to the wayside. How many of the plugins for FARR are actively maintained? I feel that either the NTFS or home-brewed option should be the primary option for this.
Depending on the level of work, I would say do the tightly integrated method first. This option will provide the most benefits, memory-wise, and can result in a much quicker search time since FARR can index monitored folders for specific file types at every X interval. That is my first choice. NTFS is a natural choice as well due to the very nature of Windows in the modern age. FAT32 is going to the wayside, especially as drive size increases, and using the journal provides many additional benefits such as access to file properties and possible metadata which can further be used to enhance FARR.
I would like to state, again, that I feel the plugin based option should be considered LAST unless one is going to be developed and maintained by mouser. And this should only be done once the quickest engine for indexing and database searching is identified.
I, for one, cannot wait for this. Mouser will tell you just how long I have been pestering him for this. I am glad to see this feature making its way into FARR, finally.
BE SURE TO POST BETAS/ALPHAS!!! I want to test!
Recent Posts
Worked for me!