Is it possible to pass a query string to Namescape's rDirectory? I'd like to build a web-app that can do a search and display the results in rDirectory, rather than first launching rDirectory and doing said search.
If you are referring to Namescape's rDirectory, the query string would look similar to this:
http://[servername]/?runapp=b05810fe-be2c-4a12-b3a9-858bbb71eff1&AutoSearch=true&cn=alice%20cooper&telephoneNumber=867
the runapp guid is captured from the rDirectory application page in the Designer menu. If you have more questions about this, please contact support#namescape.com
After some digging around and peeking at some rDirectory code, it looks like the query string would look something like this: Results.aspx?CatalogKey=2&FilterExp=x&WhereTxt=x&SortFields=cn. Unfortunately, both "FilterExp" and "WhereTxt" values are passed as encrypted text.
Looks like some time, effort, and perhaps some reverse engineering of the rDirectory web app would be required to get any further.
Related
My use case:
I have a single-valued field called cqpath. This is a textfield and has a values that look something like the following:
"/content/domain/en/path/to/some/page"
"/content/domain/en/path/to/another/page"
"/content/domain/en-us/path/to/some/page"
"/content/domain/en-us/path/to/another/page"
I wanted to form a query that would return me 1. and 2. I'd been trying along the lines of writing:
cqpath: "/content/domain/en"
which has been discovered to be erroneous, since it retrieves items 3. and 4. as well. Could any of you think of a way to write a query that returns only 1. and 2. and not 3. and 4.?
This is a normal textfield field-type. Really do appreciate your help.
Starting from Solr 4.0 you can use a regex query. You can find some useful examples here.
In your case, you can get the results that you're looking for using something like:
cqpath:/.*content/domain/en.*/
It looks like you are trying to match partial paths here with boundaries on path elements (slashes). The usual generic solution is to tokenize during index to generate all alternative completions and not tokenize during query. So, the field type declaration is not symmetric. There are examples of that in Solr distribution. And you would look at using something like (index-time only) EdgeNGramFilterFactory instead of much more expensive regex matching.
For your specific case, you may want to look at testPathHierarchyTokenizer which does that for you automatically.
And if your content were more like full URLs than just path, you could also be interested by a custom update request processor chain that includes URLClassify URP. It is not very documented, but mentions generating url parts, which is what I think you would want.
Could anyone tell me if there's some way of "hooking in" to DotNetNuke so that I can, for example, search and replace text for ALL HTML modules on the site?
e.g. if I use an HTML editor and enter the text {{replace_me}}, then I could have some code that detects "{{replace_me}}" every time a page is rendered and replace it with something else.
Please note that this is a simple example - there may be other ways of "replacing" text - however the actual use case we have is very specific and there will be some significant processing to decide what to replace :) - so whatever solution we implement should basically be:
Get HTML from DB -> Process it however we wish in full C# -> Deliver the modified string.
Thanks!
I believe you can do this with the use of an HTTPModule. Ifinity.com.au used to sell a module that did this, looks like you might be able to download it now for free (maybe?) at http://www.ifinity.com.au/Products/Inline_Link_Master/Product_Details
Just tried GAE(1.7.7 Java) Full Text Search and found if the search string is work, surprisingly it will not match working, worked, or hardworking, homework, I'd like to know if i miss something in the API, i read the tutorial but did not found any document about this except plural match.
Thanks.
P.S. I tried unit test for search service, not in working environment.
Tucked away in the docs (but unfortunately not in the table of operators), there is a '~' operator
To search for plural variants of an exact query, use the ~ operator:
~"car" # searches for "car" and "cars"
Not sure how far that will get you. Unfortunately thats about it.
See https://developers.google.com/appengine/docs/java/search/overview#Queries_on_Fields
There is so little documentation on this,but just having tried it, it just works on plurals.
One approach would be to do your own stemming on the words in the document, (though you wouldn't return that as the text ;-) Then you could perform stemming on your search term and be able to match worked, working etc..
This is a late answer, but to follow up the previous answer, what you want to do is not possible with the basic API functions. The search API works on full-text searching principles. To get around this you can tokenise your searchable data pre-index and store this in a field with the relevant document.
See: Partial matching GAE search API
I'm very new with Solr,
And I really want a step by step to have my Solr search result like the google one.
To give you an idea, when you search 'PHP' in http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FindPage , the word 'php' shows up in bold .. This is the same result I want to have.
Showing only a parser even if the pdf is a very huge one.
You can use highlighting to show a matching snippet in the results.
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/HighlightingParameters
By default, it will wrap matching words with <em> tags, but you can change this by setting the hl.simple.pre/hl.simple.post parameters.
You may be looking at the wrong part of the returned data. Try looking at the 'highlighting' component of the returned data structure (i.e. don't look at the response docs). This should give you the snippets you want.
I've found a public domain latin<->portuguese dictionary in PDF which I'd like to convert to plain text, parse and use as the database of a program. After some testing, however, I got a little skeptical. Take a look at the original file and at the resulting text of gocr. Is there any hope that I might reach 99%+ accuracy in some method? I thought of reCaptcha's database, but I guess it is Google's property, isn't it?
Thanks!
Another route is to use one of the freely available dictionary files, like http://www.brothersoft.com/downloads/dictionary-database.html
Or WordNet.
EDIT: I've just spotted that this is a Latin/Portuguese dictionary, so WordNet clearly is no good.