[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4271?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13499565#comment-13499565
]
Chris Male commented on LUCENE-4271:
------------------------------------
{quote}
I think it's odd to add syntax to Lucene's query parser that does ... nothing?
And it's strange to make Lucene's QP aware of Solr QP's syntax if it cannot do
anything with it. It seems like Solr's QP should have this logic instead ...
{quote}
+1
{quote}
Indeed - but it requires changes to the parser grammar, so subclassing doesn't
cut it.
I suppose the next best thing would be to make a QP specific to Solr.
{quote}
I don't think we should consider that a bad thing. Solr has different needs
and the classic QP is sort of the lowest common denominator of parsers.
bq. I don't mean to suggest that the Lucene Query Parser should know directly
about the Solr-level structures such as the Solr schema, Solr "params", and
Solr Q Parser plugins, but I am suggesting that Lucene could declare and
support abstractions for those sorts of interfaces
I don't think we can practical extend the classic QP in every way just to meet
Solr's needs.
bq. There are lots of useful features which are available in the Solr query
parsers which are unavailable directly to Lucene apps without a lot of effort,
and for no good reason.
.. then the Lucene apps should use the Solr QPs or a version there of. The
Classic QP was moved out of Lucene core for many reasons, but one was to combat
this perspective that its 'the' QP when it is in fact just one particular
implementation (an implementation which has lots of limitations). Users should
be encouraged to use whatever QP meets their needs and we shouldn't make the
classic QP a kitchen sink.
bq. The current "estrangement" between the Lucene and Solr query parsers is
quite a black eye for Lucene/Solr that can easily be remedied, at least from a
technical perspective.
I think we should go further and fully divorce them. Solr has its needs and
the handling of LocalParams clearly seems to be confusing users but it isn't
something the classic QP should have to resolve. Equally, Solr development
shouldn't be saddled with having to compromise its query features just so they
fit into the classic QP. As I say, the classic QP is the lowest common
denominator of query syntax and parsing and I would recommend to any user (Solr
or not) that when they need to make a large syntactical change, that they roll
their own parser.
> Solr LocalParams for Lucene Query Parser
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-4271
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4271
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: Yonik Seeley
> Attachments: LUCENE-4271.patch
>
>
> The Lucene QueryParser should implement Solr's LocalParams syntax directly so
> that instead of
> {code}
> _query_:"{!geodist d=10 p=20.5,30.2}"
> {code}
> one could directly use
> {code}
> {!geodist d=10 p=20.5,30.2}
> {code}
> references: http://wiki.apache.org/solr/LocalParams
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
