] colorARRAY=WHITE$:@FM:RED$:@FM:WHITE$:@FM:RED$

] retval=send_message('TEST.TABLE1', 'COLOR_BY_POS', 2, 2,colorarray)

The above code was provided to allow a single cell to be colored. I have looked in the help for the Send_Message function but do not see the 'COLOR_BY_POS' message listed. Is there anywhere that I can get a complete list of all messages (and what they do) when using the Send_Message function???

Any help is appreciated!

Eric H. Hilder

Innovative Billing Solutions

Eric,

Are you a Works member? In case have a look at …

…never mind! Here's the content of a posting by Mike Ruane to Bo at Celest:

The message in 'COLOR_BY_POS'. It's not documented because when used in the same edittable where the 'FONT_BY_POS' message has ben used, it GPFs.

The syntax:

Send_Message(Control, 'COLOR_BY_POS', Column, Row, backcolor;@fm:forecolor')

- Oystein -

The COLOR_BY_POS parameters that I use are:

rv=Send_Message(edittable, "COLOR_BY_POS", col, row, colorArray)

…where colorArray is an @FM delimited list consisting of:

Background color

Foreground color

Background color (when selected)

Foreground color (when selected)

colorArray and are used as described. That is, if you want specific colors when the row in particular is selected (i.e. has the SELPOS) then you specify that in these positions. and are for when the rows are un-selected.

Note that if you use COLOR_BY_POS and FONT_BY_POS in the same subroutine you may experience combatibility problems. That is why COLOR_BY_POS is not documented in the OI help.

In a current app, Frank Tomeo had to set the color to a column first before changing the font anywhere in the edittable or the coloring would not work.

There is an example of using COLOR_BY_POS in Revelation's EXAMPLES app PO_ENTRY, CREATE Event provided with OI. Unfortunately, this example does seem to work under all circumstances which has not yet been explained. Search for "Oh teach me great Fhopha!" in this Discussion group for more explanation.

Isn't it bizarre one can search for "Oh teach me great Fhopha!" but not "COLOR_BY_POS"?

- Oystein -

Yes, and to think: REVELATION is a relational-like DBMS! I guess the technology just hasn't caught up with us. I mean it is probably comparable to landing a spacecraft on Mars don't you think?

Only problem here is the discussion server is a Domino based server so the searches are limited by it's capabilities, not anything that RTI is doing. I've found that if you really want to search this site, use this search form. Sometimes the discussion areas come up without titles, but it gives great deal more information than the thread based one.

akaplan@sprezzatura.com

Sprezzatura Group

[/i]World leaders in all things RevSoft and their web forum too![/i]

Thanks a lot, Aaron!!

Thanks even more if you can satisfy my curiosity: Why is "COLOR_BY_POS" a searchable word in the SearchSite form and not in the discussion list search forms? Aren't both searches made in Domino databases? Are there two different databases with different word delimiters?

Btw - I've discovered the SearchSite form allows search on numbers too! That's been one of my other gripes about the discussion list search. E.g you want to search for an FS number. You can search for FS999 all right, but not when it's written FS 999, which happens too often.

Now if only the SearchSite result list would show all the titles…

- Oystein -

Been a long time since I delved into the depths of domino but basically it's a similar issue to searching on a xref or a btree. Each discussion is displayed or exported as a view, and the view has it's own indexing. The server itself has another index.

akaplan@sprezzatura.com

Sprezzatura Group

[/i]World leaders in all things RevSoft including their internal tools[/i]

Webmaster,

I'd like to bring up the subject of searching this site. Again.

I assume search is done on free text indexes. I assume the indexes are built with certain word delimiter settings, sets of stop words, etc. Could you please publish these settings, so we know what can be searched for and what cannot?

Free text search is always a little bit like ice fishing. You see what you catch but have no idea about the ones who got away. Please help us prepare the bait according to what's down there.

The latest discovery for me is that discussion list search and SiteSearch work differently. It seems they (or rather the different views/indexes) use different word delimiters and stop words (or whatever index filtering there is). See this thread.

- Oystein -

Aaron,

Been a long time since I delved into the depths of domino but basically it's a similar issue to searching on a xref or a btree. Each discussion is displayed or exported as a view, and the view has it's own indexing. The server itself has another index.

Thanks a lot, Aaron! I don't expect you to come up with details but I hope RevSoft are able and willing.

- Oystein -

As Aaron indicated, the search functionality is the built-in Domino search functionality. It is not only entirely possible that the site search and the view searches are different, but most probable, as they are different implementations. I can try to find out details of how each works. If I am able to discover anything I will post it in this thread.

To be honest with you, Oystein, I am not a developer and I am not able to delve into the depths of the low-level indexing details of Domino. Nor do I think that would be productive for anyone. Nor can I hack around the system to tweak the way it works (this web site is much to important). What I can do is try to document how to best use the search functionality as delivered by Domino. As I mentioned in this thread, if I can find documentation on the issue, I will post it.

Jennifer,

To be honest with you, Oystein, I am not a developer and I am not able to delve into the depths of the low-level indexing details of Domino. Nor do I think that would be productive for anyone. Nor can I hack around the system to tweak the way it works (this web site is much to important).

I'm certainly guilty of having suggested changes - earlier. But all I ask this time is to know the settings used by the indexing. And not the guts of Domino either. I really assumed there must be some settings that could be inspected. They might be in some ini or config file. Or some dialog box you can bring up from the server. Like one can inspect the settings for a cross ref index in OI. But I don't know Domino. For all I know it's hidden in some script, or even in the head of some programmer.

What I can do is try to document how to best use the search functionality as delivered by Domino. As I mentioned in this thread, if I can find documentation on the issue, I will post it.

Much appreciated. Thanks.

- Oystein -

Oystein,

If I remember correctly, this was the reason that two searches were set up. It's a limitation of Domino and notes and how searches were set up. Revelation has set up a pretty remarkable system here and are bound by the limitations of the product they chose. If you go to Citrix's site, which I tend to frequent, they too use Domino for thier messaging and KB sections. It is also limited by the same factors.

I would not begruge them for something so small, especially when there is such an easy work-around.

akaplan@sprezzatura.com

Sprezzatura Group

[/i]World leaders in all things RevSoft and cheerleading for them[/i]

Aaron,

???

- Oystein -

???

????

akaplan@sprezzatura.com

Sprezzatura Group

[/i]World leaders in all things RevSoft and perplexing other developers[/i]

Jennifer/Aaron,

Aaron - what I meant with my question marks was your reply was confusing. What are the reasons and limitations you refer to? And I felt you dodged my questions.

I have now studied the SiteSearch and agree it's good. At least it's intentions. I haven't really used it earlier. It's got an Advanced Search page. Nice. It's got online help describing lots of nifty search options. Which is even nicer. Until you try them out.

What's not good with the SiteSearch is

The online help contains errors and omissions

The online help text says "&" is the AND operator, which is wrong. A search with the criteria insertcol & message is really a search on just insertcol. insertcol and message seems to be the correct syntax.

The online help text says "@" is the phrase or "next to" operator. What it not mentions is you have to put quotes around everything. The example in the help text has no quotes. You'd expect insertcol@message to find the phrase "insertcol message". What you need is "insertcol@message".

Adding to the confusion is that both "insertcol message" and insertcol message seem to work equally well as phrase search criteria. The first syntax is not documented. And when the prompt says "Search for the following word(s):" you'd expect the second syntax to mean an OR search.

(Btw - it seems phrase search doesn't cross sentence boundaries. That's all right as long as the system really recognizes all sentence boundaries. But it doesn't. You can't do a phrase search on Eric H Hilder's name because he puts a full stop after his "H".)

I haven't checked all the other operators.

Titles don't always show in the result list…

…like Aaron mentioned. And that really is a nuicance when you've got more than a few hits.

Delimiters are still a secret

I mentioned the "_" character in an earlier posting. But that was just one specific example. If I now suddenly want to search for SYSPROCS*WORKSPACE I might have to experiment to find out if the asterix is a delimiter or not. If I suddenly want to search for work-around it's the same thing with the hyphen.

Btw - the problem is not just with delimiters used in indexing. It's also about how the query is parsed and interpreted. Here's a curious example: Do a search on insertcol_message. There are four hits (five now, presumably). Neither of the four postings contain the search criteria as written, but as two contiguous words insertcol message with no underscore. Since the underscore character is not a search operator (at least if the online help can be trusted… …ooops, it cannot), the obvious conclusion is that the criteria are parsed and interpreted as a phrase. That would be nice to know.

Search on a stop word results in an http 500…

…but I'm tempted to say please don't change it. It's absolutely preferrable to "0 documents found", which is what you get in the discussion list search. (Or to be precise - in the discussion list search you just get an empty result list. The problem is you cannot always know if you searched on a stop word or on a word that didn't occur.)

Search results cannot be trusted?

Do a search for the word "searchsite". I find seven documents. If you try now you will presumably find eight - because this posting includes the word. Most of the hits have the word in their body or title. A couple of places it's hidden in an . But there's one hit I can't explain - http://www.revelation.com/8525652b0066bfaf/d739a1010f28f6798525656b00612ab1/e80b61d7d2003eba85256840002ccdea?OpenDocument. When you inspect that document you notice the word [i]does[/i] occur in titles of the thread listing below. But that is the case for [i]all[/i] the documents in the thread. At least the documents [i]after[/i] the ones with the word in the title. (The ones before are presumably indexed too early to have later titles included.) So if thread titles are indexed too, there should have been more hits. - Oystein - </QUOTE> ---- === At 10 DEC 1999 08:29AM Jennifer Revelation wrote: === <QUOTE>Thanks for the input on the searchsite results. We have used the default implementation of the searchsite and did not write or edit any of the documentation it provides, nor did we do any QA work on that documentation. I will admit that searching on the web in genreal is an art rather than a science. In my own experience of using various search engines, I have found that searching on a particular word will yield results that don't seem to contain that word anywhere in the page. I did spend some time yesterday looking through the Domino documentation for information on delimiters, stop words, etc. but was unable to find any information of the type you are looking for. The only valuable information that I found was in the "Advanced Search" portion of the searchsite, which you have already found. </QUOTE> ---- === At 10 DEC 1999 08:50AM Steve C. wrote: === <QUOTE>Thanks Oystein. I've always wonder what the secrets were, now you've enlighten me a little. Also, congratulations on getting responses from RevSoft. How do you do it? I am still waiting on a response to this thread: [url=http://www.revelation.com/WEBSITE/DISCUSS.NSF/3d23778d9e537dc3852565c200137daa/0AF3CA755EE2B07185256838004871D7?OpenDocument " ] so that I can update to OI 3.72. Steve C. </QUOTE> ---- === At 10 DEC 1999 09:00AM Oystein Reigem wrote: === <QUOTE>Steve, Here's some more enlightenment: One would perhaps expect single characters to be stop words in both site search and discussion list search. But in general they aren't. One can e.g search for the "word" "C" which is nice because one can find "Steve C" (with [b]"Steve@C"[/b]). "P" is also searchable (try [b]"Andrew@P"[/b]). But "A" and "I" are stop words, assumedly because they are common words. (That's not fair to people with "A" and "I" as initials, of course.) :-) Btw - I don't always get responses. :-( - Oystein - </QUOTE> ---- === At 10 DEC 1999 10:56AM akaplan@sprezzatura.com - [url=http://www.sprezzatura.com]Sprezzatura Grou wrote: ===

Oystein, I was being neither cryptic nor deliberatly dodging the questions. I did my best to answer them based on general domino knowledge and familiarity with indexing systems and RTI's server from over 3 years ago[/url]. Specifics must come from Revelation, which Jennifer is explaing very clearly and looking for more information to post.

The only thing else I can tell you is I used both searches and target them very carefully, trying to limit on words and phrases I know is in the message I am looking for.

From this point on, I must defer to the people that actually configure the server.

akaplan@sprezzatura.com

Sprezzatura Group [/i]World leaders in all things RevSoft and bowing out gracefully[/i] [img]http://www.sprezzatura.com/zz.jpg[/img] </QUOTE> ---- === At 10 DEC 1999 02:49PM CT Savell wrote: === <QUOTE> Jennifer, Why not add a button with a link to : http://www.revelation.com/search.nsf/$SearchForm?SearchSite from within the discussion group called "Detailed Search" or something. That way we can either "Search this list" or "Detail Search" without having to think. I like not having to think. </QUOTE> ---- === At 10 DEC 1999 03:04PM Jennifer Revelation wrote: === <QUOTE>I appreciate your suggestion but I think this is a case of only being able to please half of the population at any given time - and which half is satisfied is depends on which solution we select. The search site functionality is already available on every page of our web site on the navigator (the last entry labeled "Search"). The "Search this list" function searches ONLY the Online Discussion documents that are part of that particular view. (In other words, if you are looking in the "Advanced Revelation" view in the Online Discussion, no documents that are categorized as "OpenInsight," for example, will show up in the results. Likewise, no documents from other areas of the web site will be included in the search.) This feature is intended to provide you with the facility of searching a targeted group of documents. While the search site does provide some more advanced searching options, it does not provide the capability to narrow the scope, like the "Search this list" feature provides. It would be an incorrect assumption to think that a "detailed search" will provide advanced search capabilities to the "search this list" function. I don't want to confuse users by coupling together two very different search features. </QUOTE> ---- === At 10 DEC 1999 04:03PM Don Bakke wrote: === <QUOTE>Jennifer, I never knew the Search link was connected to this form. I don't know about Tom but this suits me just fine. Thanks, dbakke@srpcs.com [url=http://www.srpcs.com]SRP Computer Solution

---

=== At 10 DEC 1999 04:26PM CT Savell wrote: ===

I never knew it was on here either. This will work great! I quess we need a user's manual or help for the web site!

Tom

---

=== At 16 DEC 1999 10:41AM Oystein Reigem wrote: ===

Jennifer,

It seems you haven't found out anything about (SiteSearch) search criteria yet.

But what about that other problem - the one that Aaron first mentioned?: The entries in the result list from a SiteSearch don't always include the subject. To me it looks like postings stopped having subject titles around the middle of this year, so the problem is steadily growing worse.

I now have some experience with SiteSearch - most often I know which search criteria work and which don't, meaning the first problem isn't so much of a problem any more. But the other one is. When presented with a result list with more than a few hits, seeing the subject is vital. The date is very useful to. A bare category name is not enough. Now it's a bit like Alta Vista listed its hits with just a country name.

I do hope this can be rectified.

- Oystein -

---

=== At 16 DEC 1999 11:53AM Jennifer Revelation wrote: ===

Oystein

It seems you haven't found out anything about (SiteSearch) search criteria yet.

I cannot find anything that documents the information you are looking for. I have looked in all of the Domino documentation that I have and I simply cannot find those specifications.

But what about that other problem - the one that Aaron first mentioned?: The entries in the result list from a SiteSearch don't always include the subject. To me it looks like postings stopped having subject titles around the middle of this year, so the problem is steadily growing worse.

We have known about this issue for a long time, and we have tried on various occasions to rectify it. As of yet, we still cannot determine why sometimes the subject comes up but sometimes only the name of the database. All I can promise is that we will continue to look into it and try to figure out why that happens so that we can fix the issue.

I hope you understand that we really do want to provide a single, comprehensive, consistent search interface for the entire site.Given the complexity of our web site, and the diversity of the functionality it provides, this is a challenging proposition. I don't want to think that we are dismissing your request; on the contrary, I would dearly love to address this issue. I appreciate your patience in this matter.

---

=== At 17 DEC 1999 05:40AM Oystein Reigem wrote: ===

Jennifer,

]]It seems you haven't found out anything about (SiteSearch)

]]search criteria yet.

]I cannot find anything that documents the information you

]are looking for. I have looked in all of the Domino

]documentation that I have and I simply cannot find those

]specifications.

I'm (still) confused. Isn't this like looking in the OI/LH help files when somebody asks you which specific delimiters were used for a particular index in a particular OI app? The Domino docs presumably tell how databases and views can be set up and configured, but not how a particular database is set up.

]]…I appreciate your patience in this matter

Me patient?

What I want 
I want NOW 
and it's a whole lot more than 'anyhow'

(Television: See No Evil - from Marquee Moon 1977)

- Oystein -

---

=== At 17 DEC 1999 08:30AM Jennifer Revelation wrote: ===

I'm (still) confused. Isn't this like looking in the OI/LH help files when somebody asks you which specific delimiters were used for a particular index in a particular OI app? The Domino docs presumably tell how databases and views can be set up and configured, but not how a particular database is set up.

Actually this is not true. Domino provides this functionality (or framework, if you will) out of the box and we implemented it out of the box. Since we used the Domino default functionality, we did not specify any delimiters. We have no way of knowing what those delimiters are without documentation from Lotus.

---

=== At 17 DEC 1999 09:35AM Oystein Reigem wrote: ===

Jennifer

I thought since the two views (SiteSearch and discussion list search) behave differently at least one of them must be set up with specific parameters.

- Oystein -

---

=== At 17 DEC 1999 10:12AM Jennifer Revelation wrote: ===

They are two different features – one is a function and one is a framework – that (I assume) were developed independently of each other and therefore behave differently. We implemented both features out of the box with no customizations. As a result, each feature uses default specifications and/or parameters that are transparent to us.

---

=== At 19 DEC 1999 02:22PM Oystein Reigem wrote: ===

Jennifer,

Hmm. Weird.

- Oystein -

PS. What about that help page ("Full Text Query Help") for SiteSearch? Is that out of the box too? Must have come out of a different box then…

View this thread on the forum...