[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4040?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13271341#comment-13271341
 ] 

Chris Male commented on LUCENE-4040:
------------------------------------

You raise an interesting point, some of the error messaging from the QPs is 
poor.  I've been in a situation where users were able to express  complex 
queries themselves but would often be confused by the error messages they 
received if a query didn't parse.  Some of this is related to the parsing 
frameworks we use, some of it is that we could just do better.  I think we'll 
tackle this in another issue but it's definitely part of the overall goal to 
give the QPs a big facelift.

Would you be able to tackle the surround parser documentation? You seem to have 
experience using it (I haven't) and understand its quirks.  Just throw up a 
patch and we'll iterate.
                
> Improve QueryParser and supported syntax documentation
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-4040
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4040
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: modules/queryparser
>            Reporter: Chris Male
>            Priority: Minor
>
> In LUCENE-4024 there were some changes to the fuzzy query syntax.  Only the 
> Classic QueryParser really documents its syntax, which makes it hard to know 
> whether the changes effected other QPs.  Compounding this issue there are 
> many classes which have no javadocs at all and I found myself quite confused 
> when I consolidated all the QPs into their module.
> We should do a concerted effort to improve the documentation so that it is 
> clear what syntax is supported by what QPs and so that at least the user 
> facing classes have javadocs.  
> As part of this, I wonder whether we should give the syntax supported by the 
> Classic QueryParser a new name (rather than just Lucene's query syntax) since 
> other QPs can and do support other syntax, and then somehow add some typed 
> control over this, so QPs have to declare programmatically that they support 
> the syntax and so we can verify that by randomly plugging in implementations 
> into tests.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

        

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Reply via email to