It’s like 6-7 years since I quickly added a shitty collections API in my free time because we desperately needed SOMETHING. I don’t know if I tried to make it wait for proper state or what , it was a stub to try get things moving. That call, to this day, along with all our other checks, until some tests ones recently, is garbage.
If I downloaded a database, and a lot the time, after the create a database call returned, my database was not ready, I’d saw wow. Terrible bug got through. If it was a persistent issue for over half a decade? My god. Look I just spent that half decade upgrading from Solr 4 to whatever. I was mostly out of the loop. But this is crazy, me in there too. Mark On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 10:05 AM Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'll tell you what guys, development right now sucks. I don't enjoy. > > But when I start to put things in shape? I get this smile, and I start > going with the feeling of I don't need you guys, I don't users, I don't > need a job, cause just this is figgen nice. > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 9:59 AM Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I suppose I should toss one more out. >> >> Hell yes, we will be using curator. >> >> It's insane for any group larger than 2-3 to directly use ZooKeeper. Even >> for that group, you want some damn good reasons to not use curator. We can >> start using more assembly too (joke Yonik). >> >> Curator was an option initially. Then it was yet another project hosted >> by Netflix. Now it is essential. >> >> >> - Mark >> >> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 9:41 AM Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> And look, we started pretty deep in the hole. Solr started with tons of >>> bug or limitations that hardly mattered to it and hit SolrCloud in the eye >>> like a train. And we were not setup to deal with that. >>> >>> We never had a nice garden for SolrCloud. We started in a mess, >>> thinking, eventually we clear the overgrowth, and we are all good. And then >>> we started building our house and that garden went wild with a life of it's >>> own. >>> >>> And our development practices, amazingly above many many many groups and >>> standards out there, is woefully inaccurate for what we are doing. >>> >>> "Test pass, I'm not sure about all this but I'm going to commit" (Tests >>> never pass, must be a lie anyway) >>> "Leaving on vacation, going to fire this in" >>> "No one has looked at this huge thing, it's been a while, going to >>> commit" >>> *commit* >>> >>> And comments to that affect pretty much wrap up our careful and >>> thoughtful attitude. >>> >>> And then of course we come and clean up after, careful gardeners that we >>> are ... no, we don't. We are not setup to be gardeners, we are not trying, >>> even if we do, I only like grass and screw the other plants. >>> >>> Without SolrCloud, Solr wold be in trouble as well. Brute that it is, it >>> could go a few more rounds. SolrCloud is a ballerina. Doesn't look it, >>> cause we dont take care of it. But it is, and it cannot take the beating >>> that the brute does. >>> >>> - Mark >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 5:19 AM Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Basically I can fix 99% of this without you guys - with simple care and >>>> effort and time that non of you are likely in the circumstances of being >>>> able to duplicate.. Been there done that, made it 100x-1000x faster to boot >>>> and added all kinds of fun. >>>> >>>> But I can't build the rest of Solr. I don't care about facets. So let's >>>> meet half way. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 5:14 AM Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> There are 10,000 problems here. >>>>> >>>>> So if you eventually land on one possible solution you agree on, we a >>>>> little closer. >>>>> >>>>> There is no problem with the current design. Design's can always be >>>>> improved, sure. I've made this one fast. You won't believe me fast. The >>>>> low >>>>> hanging fruit is astronomical, there is more fruit above that. >>>>> >>>>> We never focused on performance. Or at least didn't. That's after we >>>>> harden. >>>>> >>>>> Except performance is the key to everything. >>>>> >>>>> SolrCloud is not the only problem. The design of Solr, of SolrCloud, >>>>> they are fine. Change them, I don't care. Later. They are not a problem. >>>>> >>>>> But Solr has as many problems as SolrCloud at this point. This just >>>>> mater a whole hell of lot less unless they are messing with SolrCloud. >>>>> Standalone is more of a brute. >>>>> >>>>> We have 60 modules that are interconnected. We have a huge code base. >>>>> That is also fine. >>>>> >>>>> We don't tend our garden. That's not fine. I've tended the garden >>>>> before without one - more than once before. It's a great damn garden. You >>>>> guys only get to see it grown over and full of weeds. >>>>> >>>>> Anyway, no redesign, no library, no nothing like that gonna save this. >>>>> >>>>> This is hardly concrete awareness of a problem here. The awareness to >>>>> figure out what actually are the problems and what must be done - that's >>>>> expensive shit these days if you ask me. I've been wrong lots tough. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 2:26 PM Jörn Franke <jornfra...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I guess this is also a bit normal with software that grows over the >>>>>> years. >>>>>> One could also say that one writes the current use cases and >>>>>> interesting future use cases for Solr in a document and designs from >>>>>> scratch new - taking only the good pieces out of the existing software. >>>>>> Of course there is a certain amount of time where you need to >>>>>> maintain both - but this will be also the case for a major rewrite. >>>>>> >>>>>> > Am 04.11.2019 um 20:58 schrieb Erick Erickson < >>>>>> erickerick...@gmail.com>: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > If Curator would make that easier and we’re doing major surgery >>>>>> anyway…. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > But yeah, a nifty, new, more modern tool isn’t going to magically >>>>>> help if the design is flawed. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Or, if I’m putting my philosophical hat on, code doesn’t get gnarly >>>>>> intentionally. It gets gnarly because there are a bunch of problems to be >>>>>> solved and you don’t know what they are until you run into them. And it’s >>>>>> always a tension between fixing it enough to get by and fixing it by >>>>>> refactoring/redesign. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > But eventually “fixing it enough to get by” totters under it’s own >>>>>> weight and becomes increasingly fragile and you must take the hit and >>>>>> redo >>>>>> major portions of it. The questions now are: >>>>>> > 1> are we at that point? >>>>>> > 2> are we going to put the effort into rewriting some of the worst >>>>>> offenders? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> On Nov 4, 2019, at 1:28 PM, Scott Blum <dragonsi...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Figuring out a better overall algorithmic & data structure design >>>>>> that's an order of magnitude improvement seems far more important than >>>>>> swapping out libraries. And I say this as a Curator fan and committer. >>>>>> ;) >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 11:44 AM Erick Erickson < >>>>>> erickerick...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >> Bram: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Using Curator has been proposed before. It would require >>>>>> significant refactoring b/c of how deeply entwined raw ZK is in the code. >>>>>> That said, if we’re going to do major surgery it may be the right time to >>>>>> consider it. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Erick >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>>> On Nov 4, 2019, at 9:24 AM, Bram Van Dam <bram.van...@intix.eu> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> SolrCloud is sick right now. The way low level Zookeeper is >>>>>> handeled >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> On an unrelated project, I've stopped using "raw" ZK client >>>>>> access and >>>>>> >>> have switched to Curator. The API is a fair bit easier to work >>>>>> with, and >>>>>> >>> it results in less ugly code. I realize that this won't go very >>>>>> far in >>>>>> >>> resolving more fundamental issues, but it might be something that >>>>>> can >>>>>> >>> help improve the shape of the code. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> - Bram >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >>>>>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >>>>>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >>>>>> >> >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >>>>>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> - Mark >>>>> >>>>> http://about.me/markrmiller >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> - Mark >>>> >>>> http://about.me/markrmiller >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> - Mark >>> >>> http://about.me/markrmiller >>> >> >> >> -- >> - Mark >> >> http://about.me/markrmiller >> > > > -- > - Mark > > http://about.me/markrmiller > -- - Mark http://about.me/markrmiller
