[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-7296?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14377821#comment-14377821
]
David Smiley commented on SOLR-7296:
------------------------------------
This is important so that maintaining Solr doesn't become too painful, and to
lower the barrier for new contributors.
I'm inclined to say we should pick one as the back-end and then find a way to
migrate the other implementation's back end to the one back-end. It might not
make sense to keep the AnalyticsComponent as a surface API. I need to do my
own homework to get an opinion of these... but my opinion of Solr's
FacetComponent & SimpleFacets is that it's become an unmaintainable mess with
the different facet types intertwined instead of in separate classes. I could
be refactored, sure.
> Reconcile facetting implementations
> -----------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-7296
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-7296
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Task
> Components: faceting
> Reporter: Steve Molloy
>
> SOLR-7214 introduced a new way of controlling faceting, the unmbrella
> SOLR-6348 brings a lot of improvements in facet functionality, namely around
> pivots. Both make a lot of sense from a user perspective, but currently have
> completely different implementations. With the analytics components, this
> makes 3 implementation of the same logic, which is bound to behave
> differently as time goes by. We should reconcile all implementations to ease
> maintenance and offer consistent behaviour no matter how parameters are
> passed to the API.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
