>From my perspective, working for a company that uses Solr on a bunch of apps, >I really wish we keep it agnostic. I see the case for documenting that "our >testing process exclusively uses Jetty 7, we've included it in our >distribution, and we recommend it". But I don't see why we need to be naming >our parameters "JettyThis" or "JettyThat" and telling people they've got to >use Jetty. The fact is users often need to use other containers. In my >company, we use Jboss 5. That's it. We have a big support contract for it, >our server admins know it, etc. If we were forced to use Jetty, then we would >grudingly use it, but then our cost of ownership just went up a little.
On the other hand, expecting to test every possible container before you can tell people its "supported" for a standards-compliant java web-app is just crazy. This is like saying that DIH's SQLEntityProcessor is only supported for HSQLDB because that's the one we test against, or that you can't run Lucene on Solaris because Uwe's Jenkins doesn't have a Solaris environment. Perhaps, though there is a middle ground. Beyond telling people what we test and what recommend, maybe we can write a few tests that check for known bugs from popular servlet/j2ee containers. Or even a wiki page that says something like "Some containers have this bug which can hurt in these instances. To check if your container is stricken with this problem, try this..." But in the end, the advice should be just like what we say when people ask how big a server they need or what to set their java heap to: test thoroughly before going to production. This is reminding me of one of my pet peeves back when we had Endeca: they had 3 supported OS-es. That's it. The fact that Solr could run in any standards-complaint environment was a big plus in my mind. James Dyer E-Commerce Systems Ingram Content Group (615) 213-4311 -----Original Message----- From: Mark Miller [mailto:markrmil...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 8:31 AM To: dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] Should Solr be an AppServer agnostic WAR or require Jetty? On Jul 13, 2012, at 9:19 AM, Robert Muir wrote: > I know the wiki used to > say the release manager should go and manually test alternative > containers before releasing: I refuse to do that. Its not the release > manager's job. That's insane anyhow :) The RM can't thorougly test each of other containers as a 'step' in the release process at the end of the cycle :) Absurd. I think that basically meant just smoke test, cause it could not mean much more. Not sure how much good in the world that bought you, but I agree it's not the RM's job. We know we have a good experience with exactly one version of one web container - the one we ship. We actually have been pretty public about this over the past couple years - we have just not changed the website. I can find a multitude of quotes from various Lucene/Solr committers talking about how bad an idea it is not to use Jetty due to a variety of issues. You are asking for a poor experience. - Mark Miller lucidimagination.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
