My view is that if we simply added an option to edismax to restrict the
syntax to the very limited syntax of dismax, then we could have one, common
xdismax query parser.
And then, why not simply rename the current Solr query parser to "classic"
and make the new xdismax be the default Solr query parser.
And then... push a lot of the so-called "Solr-specific" features down into
the Lucene query parser (abstracting away the specifics of Solr schema, Solr
plugin, Solr parameter format, etc.) and then we can have one, unified query
parser for Lucene and Solr. But... not everyone is persuaded!
-- Jack Krupansky
-----Original Message-----
From: David Smiley (@MITRE.org)
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 11:43 PM
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: dismax vs edismax
It was my hope that by now, the dismax & edismax distinction would be a
thing
of the past, such that we'd simply call this by one name, simply "dismax".
From memories of various JIRA commentary, Jan wants this too and made great
progress enhancing edismax, but Hoss pushed back on edismax overtaking
dismax as "the" one new dismax. I see this as very unfortunate, as having
both complicates things and makes it harder to write them in books ;-) I'd
love to simply say "dismax" without having to say "edismax" or wonder if
when someone said "dismax" they meant "edismax", etc. Does anyone see this
changing / progressing?
~ David
-----
Author: http://www.packtpub.com/apache-solr-3-enterprise-search-server/book
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/dismax-vs-edismax-tp4022834.html
Sent from the Lucene - Java Developer mailing list archive at Nabble.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
