ID |
Date |
Icon |
Author |
Author Email |
Category |
OS |
ELOG Version |
Subject |
66509
|
Tue Aug 11 08:33:32 2009 |
| Stefan Ritt | stefan.ritt@psi.ch | Request | Windows | 2.6.5 | Re: List Option |
Alan Grant wrote: |
Currently this is defined as a maximum of 100 literals in the cfg file. I would like to see the option to reference an external text file as input for this.
|
I will put this on the wish list.
Alan Grant wrote: |
As a side question, I would also like to increase the max to a greater value, for example, even 5000. I assume I can change the source (I recall var was something like "List_Option_Max") and see if that would still work, but would you know offhand if that would cause a problem anywhere else?
|
I limited this to 100 entries because it will be hard to handle it. Imagine a drop-down list box with 5000 entries. It would fill your complete screen and you still won't see all 5000 entries. In that case it might be better to use a free text field and enter the attribute value as free text.
You can increase MAX_N_LIST in elogd.c, but at some point you will get a stack overflow and elogd will just crash.
- Stefan
|
66517
|
Wed Aug 19 11:49:37 2009 |
| Johannes Liegl | Johannes.Liegl@gefanuc.com | Request | Linux | Windows | 2.7.2-2012 | multiple keyword search - regular expression |
Dear Sirs,
searching for keywords regular expression becomes very long. Are there any other type easy multiple keyword search supported. For example a keyword search like keyword1 & keyword2 results in different output than a keyword search like keyword2 & keyword1. A simple keyword search like "keyword1 & keyword2 and keyword2 &keyword1 should find all documents in a database containing both keywords resulting in the same output.
Thank you very much for you help in advance.
Best Regards
Johannes Liegl
|
66524
|
Thu Sep 3 18:14:26 2009 |
| Stefan Ritt | stefan.ritt@psi.ch | Request | Linux | Windows | 2.7.2-2012 | Re: multiple keyword search - regular expression |
Johannes Liegl wrote: |
Dear Sirs,
searching for keywords regular expression becomes very long. Are there any other type easy multiple keyword search supported. For example a keyword search like keyword1 & keyword2 results in different output than a keyword search like keyword2 & keyword1. A simple keyword search like "keyword1 & keyword2 and keyword2 &keyword1 should find all documents in a database containing both keywords resulting in the same output.
|
I had this request already several times. Indeed I myself am not very happy with regular expressions. If anybody knows of any other convenient search method, together with freely available C code, I'm more than happy to include this into elog. |
66528
|
Fri Sep 4 13:59:19 2009 |
| Yoshio Imai | | Request | Linux | Windows | 2.7.2-2012 | Re: multiple keyword search - regular expression |
Maybe there is a simple way.
If I understand it correctly, the entries are accepted/rejected for inclusion in the search result list based on one call to regexec. In order to search for N keywords, you could replace this by a loop of N calls to regexec, and only accept the entry if all of them find a match. |
66529
|
Fri Sep 4 14:07:31 2009 |
| Stefan Ritt | stefan.ritt@psi.ch | Request | Linux | Windows | 2.7.2-2012 | Re: multiple keyword search - regular expression |
Yoshio Imai wrote: | Maybe there is a simple way.
If I understand it correctly, the entries are accepted/rejected for inclusion in the search result list based on one call to regexec. In order to search for N keywords, you could replace this by a loop of N calls to regexec, and only accept the entry if all of them find a match. |
That's right, but some people want something like
(NOT "House" and "Car") OR "Tree"
Using regex'es is a bit exotic for most users. So I hope there is some source code which implements a Google type search more or less 1:1. And Google does not use regex'es (is that right?). Here is the syntax for the Google search:
http://www.google.com/support/websearch/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=136861 |
66553
|
Fri Sep 18 07:32:38 2009 |
| soren poulsen | soren.poulsen@cern.ch | Request | Linux | 2.7.7 | Option list length |
Hi,
I use the following attribute definition:
Options <attribute> = <list>
However, I am being limited by the list length limit of 100. I have 103 items, but I only see 100.
Could the limit be extended (to 200 for instance) ?
Thanks a lot for your help
Soren
|
66555
|
Wed Oct 7 01:31:05 2009 |
| Bill Pier | bpier@clove.org | Request | All | 2.7.7 | feature req.: identify ELOG web pages via META element |
* Withdrawn *
The HTML layout produced by elogd is horrendous to deal with programmatically; I give up.
Hi,
I'm writing a greasemonkey script to slightly alter the look of the pages served by the ELOG server. One difficulty that I'm struggling with is how to identify what type of page ELOG has created. While I have several methods to determine the page type, such as a log entry vs. log entries summary, the solutions are not straight forward and not clean. As far as I tell, there's no specific identification in HTML document currently that describes and identifies the type of page being served by the ELOG server.
So, I'm requesting that the pages created by ELOG be identified in some fashion with the META element, such as:
<meta name="description" content="elog log entry" />
or
<meta name="description" content="elog log summary" />
or even using the keywords attribute:
<meta name="keywords" content="elog log summary" />
Thanks!
|
66561
|
Fri Oct 16 12:21:45 2009 |
| Stefan Ritt | stefan.ritt@psi.ch | Request | Linux | 2.7.7 | Re: Option list length |
soren poulsen wrote: |
Hi,
I use the following attribute definition:
Options <attribute> = <list>
However, I am being limited by the list length limit of 100. I have 103 items, but I only see 100.
Could the limit be extended (to 200 for instance) ?
Thanks a lot for your help
Soren
|
You can change that yourself. Just find following line in elogd.c:
#define MAX_N_LIST 100
and change it to 200, then recompile. But you are there on your own, at some point you will get a stack overflow and elogd will crash, but I don't know exactly where this limit is.
Anyhow I would propose that if you have so many options in an attribute, that you better go and group these options somehow. Like using two attributes, where the first defines the group, and the second gets different list for each option of the first attribute using conditional attributes. Have a look here.
|