On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Yonik Seeley
<yo...@lucidimagination.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Ryan McKinley <ryan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> And I'm still on the fence - _explain_ alone does not justify a whole
>>> new syntax IMO... so we may need more usecase examples to figure out
>>> what problem we're actually trying to solve.
>>>
>>
>> The key use case I am thinking of is an easy way to add a value to the
>> the response. In SQL:
>>
>> SELECT name,'hello' FROM ...
>>
>> With this syntax you can now use:
>>
>> fl=name,_value:hello_
>>
>> The existing syntax is totally ridiculous:
>>
>> fl=name,{!transformer name=value value=hello}
>
> That's not the existing syntax. Or I guess you were just
> brainstorming about what using the existing localParams syntax would
> look like if you tried to apply it to transformers?
Ya, i was looking at an easy way to pass a simple argument to a
transformer. LocalParams seems to be the way they are done, another
option would be &transformer._value_=hello but I think i like the
inline bit.
> Or are you saying that localParams syntax is ridiculous and should be
> replaced by something different?
>
Not suggesting that, just saying it is overly complicated to pass a
single value to something.
>> I see a real need to be able to pass a simple value to a transformer.
>> Explain is just one of many examples.
>
> I was trying to think up what other real use cases actually where...
> because that really does have a bearing on if a new syntax should be
> developed, and what that syntax should look like.
>
The use cases I can think of are either very simple or very complex.
I like this because it lets simple happen inline, and complex can
happen in Components/Handlers/elsewhere
ryan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
