[jsword-devel] Bundling JSword with FireBible

[DM Smith]

On 11/10/2011 05:14 AM, Brian Fernandes wrote:
> Currently when you install FireBible you are expected to point it to a 
> JSword installation on your system, the FireBible extension is small 
> and does not include JSword.
> When I submitted this for inclusion in the Firefox add-ons list, they 
> told me that the whole installation process was just too complicated; 
> besides the fact that you must have Java installed, you also need to 
> download JSword, unzip, point to this location in FireBible. I can see 
> their point, especially for non dev types. FireBible is currently 
> listed (but hidden from most public) in their extension registry for 
> this reason and I intend to correct this now, at least the JSword 
> installation bit.
>
> I intend to include the JSword binaries in the extension, but continue 
> to give users the ability to specify an external JSword installation 
> if they wish. This takes the extension size up from 300KB to nearly 
> 4MB. But that is with JSword 1.6. With the latest nightly builds, the 
> sizes of JARs are significantly higher and I have a few questions:
>
> a) I assume a large number of fixes and enhancements (like 
> faster/better searching) have been made since 1.6 and they are in the 
> nightly builds. Does it make sense to include a nightly build in the 
> extension or should I stick to 1.6 for now? Is there a more recent 
> stable build that I could use?

The nightly build is probably the best at this point, but test it first.

I know there are some problems with the BibleDesktop resources.

>
> b) In the nightly binary, there are multiple versions of Lucene - 
> 2.9.1, 3.0.2 and 3.0.3. Is this intentional or can I stick with Lucene 
> 3.0.3?
For the nightly build, you should be using only the latest. The others 
should not be there. That is a problem with our upgrade process.

>
>
> c) I know the newest version of Lucene, Lucene 3, will not work with 
> indices created with Lucene 1. Some time ago DM mentioned that the 
> code to detect that the index present was a Lucene 1 index and thus 
> invalid was not complete. Has any work been done on that front or will 
> users still have to manually delete their indices?

That's correct. They will appear to work but won't. Also the nightly 
build also assumes that the indexes are built with it.

The index detection has not been completed. It will need to be before a 
release is done.

Also, Java 4, 5 and 7 differ in the Unicode standard they support. (5 
and 6 were the same.) This will require new indexes for some languages, 
but without analysis it'd be best to rebuild all non-English language 
indexes. (It hasn't affected ASCII and probably not affected Latin 1.)

>
> d) What is lucene-smartcn? That JAR is 3.5MB in size and almost equals 
> the size of all the other JARs that make up JSword. From what I could 
> find online, it adds better Chinese indexing but I would like to avoid 
> including this as it has a very significant impact on the size of the 
> extension.
> i) Will Lucene / JSword still work if this file is absent?
Yes. But you may need to change a resource file to point to the other 
Chinese analyzer.

>
> ii) If yes, will indexing of Chinenese modules be completely broken or 
> just not as "smart" if I remove the library from the distribution?
You'll have to try and see whether it is broken. :) Regarding "smart", 
it includes a Chinese dictionary that helps it know what are words (a 
gross oversimplification).


For searching to work it has to use the same analyzer with which the 
index was created.

>
>
> Thanks,
> Brian.
>
> _______________________________________________
> jsword-devel mailing list
> jsword-devel at crosswire.org
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/jsword-devel