Evaluating options for static site searching.

[Harnum, Alan]

Hi Tony,

Thank you for this summary – as discussed in the channel yesterday, I personally don’t consider DocPad integration to be a compelling reason for a particular solution. Philosophically speaking, the last few years of experience has made me distrustful of plugin-style architectures for static site generation (this is very coloured by the recent DocPad struggles).

There are a few examples of integrating both Fuse and Lunr with Hugo (the direction the IDRC has been going lately for static sites) here that may usefully inform this discussion: https://gist.github.com/eddiewebb/735feb48f50f0ddd65ae5606a1cb41ae

From: fluid-work <fluid-work-bounces at lists.idrc.ocad.ca> on behalf of Tony Atkins <tony at raisingthefloor.org>
Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 10:45 AM
To: "architecture at lists.gpii.net Architecture" <architecture at lists.gpii.net>, Fluid Work <fluid-work at fluidproject.org>
Subject: Evaluating options for static site searching.

Hi, All.

This week I took a few minutes to evaluate a few options for searching static sites (like the Infusion documentation) and wrote up my experiences as a technology evaluation on the GPII wiki:

https://wiki.gpii.net/w/Technology_Evaluation_-_Static_Site_Search

As this issue affects both the Fluid community and the GPII architecture that is largely built using Infusion, I'm cross-posting to the gpii-architecture and fluid-work mailing lists to get input from both communities.  If you are at all interested in the topic, I'd appreciate it if you'd take a few minutes to review the evaluation and send your feedback.

If there is enough interest, I am happy to put together a one-off meeting to discuss.

Cheers,


Tony
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/pipermail/fluid-work/attachments/20190410/11038b31/attachment.htm>