Duplicate plugins - FTS Xapian

[Tom Hendrikx]

On 31-08-2021 12:01, Aki Tuomi wrote:
> 
>> On 31/08/2021 10:56 Felix Zielcke <fzielcke at z-51.de> wrote:
>>
>>   
>> Am Dienstag, dem 31.08.2021 um 10:33 +0300 schrieb Aki Tuomi:
>>>
>>>> On 31/08/2021 00:11 Joan Moreau <jom at grosjo.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>> There seems to be 2 plugins doing the same thins
>>>> - https://github.com/slusarz/dovecot-fts-flatcurve/
>>>> - https://github.com/grosjo/fts-xapian/ (mine)
>>>> Both are in the doc of dovecot
>>>> https://doc.dovecot.org/configuration_manual/fts/
>>>>
>>>> I am currently working hard to push it to RPM package, and plugin
>>>> is already approved by ArchLinux and Debian
>>>>
>>>> Isn't there double work here ?
>>>> Thanks
>>>> JM
>>>
>>> If you look closer, you can see they are not exactly duplicates.
>>> Flatcurve works differently than your plugin.
>>>
>>> Aki
>>
>> Is there somewhere a direct comparison of them?
>> I currenty use fts-xapian from Joan without problems.
>> But what would be the advantages of fts-flatcurve over fts-xapian?
> 
> fts_flatcurve does only full word searching, although you can use fts_filters and fts_tokenizers settings to affect stemming and other matching to make it work with plurals and such.
> 
> Both plugins have their merits.

I still think it's weird to see that Open-Xchange starts a FTS Xapian 
plugin with mostly the same basic functionality that is already 
available in an existing plugin maintained by someone in the community 
Especially if that happens without any (apparent) communication with the 
existing plugin developer to find out whether fixing the issues that 
slusarz/Open-Xchange seem to have with the existing plugin, can be fixed.

Combining forces just seems a better way to spend scarce development 
resources than building something similar (but different) without any 
communication.

(Note: I don't use any of these plugins).

My 2 cents,

	Tom