[sword-devel] Per Module V11N (Was Re: Bible book introductions)
kostyamaslyuk at gmail.com
Thu Jun 6 02:52:58 MST 2013
Thank you for renaming this thread.
My post was *primarily* about *getting* this feature *status*. Because if
we ever have it we need not Scope.
Simply when gatekeepers keep silent i don't know should i to persuade them
or my self :^)
And i agree with Nic, many good features i made have started from long idle
period and feeling that i do not like this...
Multiple module v11ns is just a new idea for me, about what i only started
to thinking, of course it require to change module format. Positive moment
here is that you have one data of different markup, user needs to download
one module instead of two.
I would agree that it is not worth to realize as for now, but i think that
creativity is inexplicable thing and even bad idea could push on to good.
05.06.2013 20:01 пользователь "DM Smith" <dmsmith �� crosswire.org> написал:
> On Jun 5, 2013, at 5:43 AM, Костя Маслюк <kostyamaslyuk �� gmail.com> wrote:
> 05.06.2013 5:32 пользователь "Nic Carter" <niccarter �� mac.com> написал:
> > I guess we need to have some sort of implementation with which to try
> this out with. I remember that trying to create a cLucene search index on
> my old iPhone 3G was sufficiently silly that I removed that functionality
> in PS. But I needed to test it to confirm that it was a stupid idea to
> allow users to attempt it. (I would say the same for BibleTime mini & say
> that 2.5hrs is way too long to even suggest a user plug in their phone and
> run it overnight! But that's just my sanity shining through, and I'll
> resume my insanity in a moment)...
> This statement forced me to check: with BtMini i got nine minutes to
> create clucene search index for KJV (iphone 3gs 6.1 firmware). Can't
> believe that 3g to 3gs performance difference can be up to 16 times.
> Coming back to conversation subject, there can be i didn't noticed too,
> whether idea with module-supplied-v11n was rejected? Compared to Scope
> feature it is more powerful flexible, do not increase load on frontend, and
> finally simple to realize. I even consider ability to provide several v11n
> schemes for one module, whether it is necessary for user to turn off
> deuterocanonical content.
> The intention of Scope was to declare what was actually in the module. It
> was not meant to hide module content.
> I don't know what thread it was. But my understanding is that every time
> this is brought up the answer is we aren't going to do that using the
> current module format but rather using a gen book format (and
> I think that part of it may be the desire to have mappings from one v11n
> to another. Having "arbitrary" per module v11n make the task hard.
> The problem of having multiple v11n per module is that is not how a v11n
> works. In the non-compressed module, there are two parts per testament: an
> index and a dat file. The v11n is used to convert a Bible reference into an
> index into the dat file. Basically, the structure of the v11n is given as
> counts of verses by chapters. If one v11n is missing content of the other,
> its index for every verse following will differ.
> There are two basic solutions:
> a) Build the module twice, such as is done with the KJV.
> b) Change the frontends to turn off/on non-canonical material. This
> requires distinct knowledge of the v11n to get it right.
> a) is a lot easier to do.
> If the frontends will only display books, chapters and verses that are
> actually in a module (e.g. in a verse picker) then we may not need both KJV
> and KJVA, NRSV and NRSVA, ..., but only the one that contains the
> apocrypha. In fact we probably can use the NRSV(A) for the KJV and get rid
> of the KJV v11n. But that day is a long way off.
> Hope this helps.
> In Him,
> DM Smith
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel �� crosswire.org
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
----------- ???????? ????? -----------
???????? ? ??????? HTML ???? ?????????…
More information about the sword-devel