It should probably be proved that it doesn't affect perf to remove it rather than the other way around.
- Mark On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:13 AM [email protected] < [email protected]> wrote: > Yeah; Uwe’s story is also as I understand it. IMO the dependencies aren’t > worth it unless someone demonstrably proves otherwise. Given that SolJ > mostly uses javabin (response by default but not request; and requests tend > to be small), XML performance is less of an issue as well. > ~ David > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 8:31 AM Uwe Schindler <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> >> >> There is not a direct dependency. The STAX-parser shipped with the JDK is >> too slow (said by some people). I am not sure if this is still true with >> Java 7 and Java 8, but In Java 6 it was! When having Woodstock in >> classpath, it plugs this XML parser into the JDK with SPI (like our lucene >> codecs). Solr should work without woodstox, but you may have slower XML >> imports (StAX is used by UpdateHandler#XMLLoader only). >> >> >> >> Uwe >> >> >> >> ----- >> >> Uwe Schindler >> >> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen >> >> http://www.thetaphi.de >> >> eMail: [email protected] >> >> >> >> *From:* Varun Thacker [mailto:[email protected]] >> *Sent:* Thursday, August 27, 2015 1:41 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Remove woodstox-core-asl and stax2-api dependencies from Solr? >> >> >> >> I could not find any dependencies on these libraries. Did I miss anything >> or is it safe to remove them? >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> Regards, >> Varun Thacker >> > -- > Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker > LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book: > http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com > -- - Mark about.me/markrmiller
