[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-18161?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=18068314#comment-18068314
]
Isabelle Giguere commented on SOLR-18161:
-----------------------------------------
As mentioned in https://github.com/apache/solr/pull/4078, I have a local stash
with these changes, so I'll publish a PR.
> Improve /api/node/system response
> ---------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-18161
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-18161
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Isabelle Giguere
> Priority: Minor
>
> This is a follow-up of [https://github.com/apache/solr/pull/4078]
> The system info in the single-node response is at the same level as the
> response header (i.e.: fields "node"(name), "mode", "core_root"... at the
> same level as "responseHeader").
> Suggestion: wrap the V2 system info in "nodeInfo":
> {code:java}
> <response>
> <lst name="responseHeader"><!-- ... --></lst>
> <lst name="nodeInfo">
> <str name="node">localhost:8983_solr</str>
> <!-- ... -->
> </lst>
> </response>
> {code}
> Ideally, IMHO, the "node" field should be named "name" (i.e.: the node name),
> and then the wrapper "nodeInfo" could be just "node".
> Other suggestion, from [~gerlowskija]
> {quote}
> I'm somewhat tempted, as I read your comments, to suggest overhauling this
> endpoint entirely and making it look radically different in our v2 API.
> Something like splitting it up into a few smaller paths, like /node/jvm,
> /node/resources, /node/version, etc. But it's probably better to get things
> ported over to v2 in the current format and then reevaluate? Idk - curious if
> you have any thoughts on that.
> {quote}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
