Hi, David and everyone,
I''ve had Ferret running fine in a production Rails application for a
while now. I haven''t updated Ferret or really looked at the
Ferret-related code since probably January, but I recently started
thinking about trying out the latest version (we were using 0.3.2, I
think). I got the latest (0.9.4) and have noticed things break. In
particular, I used to refer to the constant
Ferret::Analysis::StandardAnalyzer::ENGLISH_STOP_WORDS, but now when I
try to reference it I get an uninitialized constant error for
StopAnalyzer. Here''s an example IRB session:
1 irb(main):001:0> require ''rubygems''
2 => true
3 irb(main):002:0> require_gem ''ferret''
4 => true
5 irb(main):003:0> Ferret::Analysis::StopAnalyzer
6 NameError: uninitialized constant Ferret
7 from (irb):3
8 irb(main):004:0> require ''ferret''
9 => true
10 irb(main):005:0> Ferret::Analysis::StopAnalyzer
11 NameError: uninitialized constant Ferret::Analysis::StopAnalyzer
12 from (irb):5
13 irb(main):006:0> Ferret::Analysis::StandardAnalyzer
14 => Ferret::Analysis::StandardAnalyzer
15 irb(main):007:0> Ferret::Analysis::StandardAnalyzer.superclass
16 => Ferret::Analysis::Analyzer
A few questions:
On line 8 -- why is it necessary to require ''ferret'' after
doing a
require_gem ''ferret''?
On lines 10 and 11 -- why isn''t it finding StopAnalyzer? It''s
defined in
the same file as StandardAnalyzer (lines 13 and 14).
On lines 15 and 16 -- StandardAnalyzer is defined in
ferret-0.9.4/lib/ferret/analysis/analyzers.rb, and it''s a subclass of
StopAnalyzer. Yet when I try the superclass method, it returns Analyzer.
Any ideas why this is?
Maybe I''m missing something really obvious, but I''m finding it
quite
perplexing right now.
Thanks!
Jen
P.S. David -- thanks for Ferret! It''s been running great in our
production application. People love the app''s search capabilities,
including fuzzy search, which are of course all made possible by Ferret.
On 7/18/06, jennyw <jennyw at dangerousideas.com> wrote:> Hi, David and everyone, > > I''ve had Ferret running fine in a production Rails application for a > while now. I haven''t updated Ferret or really looked at the > Ferret-related code since probably January, but I recently started > thinking about trying out the latest version (we were using 0.3.2, I > think). I got the latest (0.9.4) and have noticed things break. In > particular, I used to refer to the constant > Ferret::Analysis::StandardAnalyzer::ENGLISH_STOP_WORDS, but now when I > try to reference it I get an uninitialized constant error for > StopAnalyzer. Here''s an example IRB session: > > 1 irb(main):001:0> require ''rubygems'' > 2 => true > 3 irb(main):002:0> require_gem ''ferret'' > 4 => true > 5 irb(main):003:0> Ferret::Analysis::StopAnalyzer > 6 NameError: uninitialized constant Ferret > 7 from (irb):3 > 8 irb(main):004:0> require ''ferret'' > 9 => true > 10 irb(main):005:0> Ferret::Analysis::StopAnalyzer > 11 NameError: uninitialized constant Ferret::Analysis::StopAnalyzer > 12 from (irb):5 > 13 irb(main):006:0> Ferret::Analysis::StandardAnalyzer > 14 => Ferret::Analysis::StandardAnalyzer > 15 irb(main):007:0> Ferret::Analysis::StandardAnalyzer.superclass > 16 => Ferret::Analysis::Analyzer > > A few questions:Hi Jenny,> On line 8 -- why is it necessary to require ''ferret'' after doing a > require_gem ''ferret''?Because I haven''t set the autorequire parameter in the gemspec. Until 30 seconds ago I wasn''t even aware of it so I''ll make sure it''s set in futer versions.> On lines 10 and 11 -- why isn''t it finding StopAnalyzer? It''s defined in > the same file as StandardAnalyzer (lines 13 and 14).The code you are looking at is not the actual code that you are running. All the analyzers are now defined in the extension (as long as you have the extension loaded). Unfortunately I neglected to add the StopAnalyzer. I''ll try and remember for the next version.> On lines 15 and 16 -- StandardAnalyzer is defined in > ferret-0.9.4/lib/ferret/analysis/analyzers.rb, and it''s a subclass of > StopAnalyzer. Yet when I try the superclass method, it returns Analyzer. > Any ideas why this is?Same reason as above.> Maybe I''m missing something really obvious, but I''m finding it quite > perplexing right now.I''d suggest waiting for the next version. There are going to be a lot of major changes. There will no longer be a pure Ruby version of Ferret, (windows users no need to fret, there''ll be a windows binary). I had hoped to get it out over the weekend but I still have a few problems. I''ll announce it on the list as soon as it''s ready.> P.S. David -- thanks for Ferret! It''s been running great in our > production application. People love the app''s search capabilities, > including fuzzy search, which are of course all made possible by Ferret.I''m very happy to hear that. Cheers, Dave
On 7/18/06, David Balmain <dbalmain.ml at gmail.com> wrote:> On 7/18/06, jennyw <jennyw at dangerousideas.com> wrote: > > On lines 10 and 11 -- why isn''t it finding StopAnalyzer? It''s defined in > > the same file as StandardAnalyzer (lines 13 and 14). > > The code you are looking at is not the actual code that you are > running. All the analyzers are now defined in the extension (as long > as you have the extension loaded). Unfortunately I neglected to add > the StopAnalyzer. I''ll try and remember for the next version.Ok, that makes it sound like my process for creating the next release is a bit dodgy. When I say "I''ll try and remember", it is because I''m rewriting most of the bindings and the API is changing a lot so there will be a whole new set of unit tests. It is quite likely that a lot of stuff will be left out, simply because I''m still working on it. So please be patient. The next release, 0.10.0 will be very alpha quality so
Thanks for the answers, David! David Balmain wrote:> Ok, that makes it sound like my process for creating the next release > is a bit dodgy. When I say "I''ll try and remember", it is because I''m > rewriting most of the bindings and the API is changing a lot so there > will be a whole new set of unit tests. It is quite likely that a lot > of stuff will be left out, simply because I''m still working on it. So > please be patient. The next release, 0.10.0 will be very alpha quality > soLooks like you might have gotten cut off, but it sounds like you''re saying that we should expect some issues with 0.10.0. Out of curiosity, is there a recommended stable version of Ferret? We''ve been running on 0.3.2 and it''s working well, so there''s no real reason to change, but I thought I''d ask. The enhanced performance with the later Ferret versions would be great but not necessary for our needs on this project. We''re starting a new project this month, though, that will be for a customer with a highly visited Web site, so I''ll probably be putting 0.10.0 through its paces. Thanks again! Jen
On 7/18/06, jennyw <jennyw at dangerousideas.com> wrote:> Thanks for the answers, David! > > David Balmain wrote: > > Ok, that makes it sound like my process for creating the next release > > is a bit dodgy. When I say "I''ll try and remember", it is because I''m > > rewriting most of the bindings and the API is changing a lot so there > > will be a whole new set of unit tests. It is quite likely that a lot > > of stuff will be left out, simply because I''m still working on it. So > > please be patient. The next release, 0.10.0 will be very alpha quality > > so > > Looks like you might have gotten cut off, but it sounds like you''re > saying that we should expect some issues with 0.10.0.Yes, I was going to say don''t start porting your production apps to 0.10.0. I would however suggest that people starting new applications should use 0.10.0 as soon as it comes out. It should quickly become more stable than previous versions.> Out of curiosity, is there a recommended stable version of Ferret? > We''ve been running on 0.3.2 and it''s working well, so there''s no real > reason to change, but I thought I''d ask.If you are currently using 0.3.2 I''d stick with that until the 0.10 series becomes stable which will hopefully be very soon.> The enhanced performance with > the later Ferret versions would be great but not necessary for our needs > on this project. We''re starting a new project this month, though, that > will be for a customer with a highly visited Web site, so I''ll probably > be putting 0.10.0 through its paces.Good idea. I hope you like the new API. Cheers, Dave