On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 17:14:35 -0700 eliott <eliott@cactuswax.net> wrote:
On 6/3/08, Loui <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 20:25:33 +0200 Sylvester Johansson <syljo361@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey Sylvester. I think I like this method better than the other. Could you fix the indentation (especially in function query), put a more descriptive commit message, and resubmit? Thanks.
I already outlined on the bugtracker why I thought this wasn't exactly a great idea, as it was implemented. oh well.
This is a different patch from the one in the bug tracker (implementation looks a little cleaner). Do you have the same qualms about this one? I think there should be a way of specifying more info in the search. What's good about this method is that it will only return what's needed, no more, no less. I guess what we could really use are examples of it's usage and potential abuse. At least with this method the server won't be hit as hard as if the client did the search and requested info for every single search result. Maybe we can patch the behaviour later on when the implications are clearer from real life testing eh? Heh, it's obviously a highly requested feature by AUR application devs. I would have written a patch like this myself. :P