So, if we said 5.x was non-WAR, we could move forward with it and maintain 4.x as WAR.
I'll put my vote at +0.5. There are a lot of people using Solr that are putting it into a standard, corporate approved web container. I could see that argument going both ways. On the one hand, no one asks what "container" MySql runs in, on the other, people have been trained for a lot of years on Solr as a WAR. Frankly, I like how Restlet handles this stuff, for the most part. Jetty (or other containers) are an implementation detail. -Grant On May 4, 2013, at 5:25 PM, Mark Miller wrote: > Supporting both just compounds our problems and doesn't go very far towards > solving any. > > The only place the webapp will end up still making sense after a bit of time > is in non solrcloud mode. The improvements it will bring will make it a dumb > choice if you use SolrCloud. We already have enough baggage holding up > SolrCloud because of supporting the std mode - adding to the list only makes > my life even harder. > > We need to reduce the number of configurations we ship, not multiply them. I > believe *very* strongly. We must start to focus the beam, there is already to > much diffraction. > > - Mark > > On May 4, 2013, at 2:09 PM, Grant Ingersoll <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Why not just support both? It really isn't all that hard. While I agree w/ >> Robert and Mark that it's time to consider alternatives, I also don't think >> it is all that hard to support both from a user's perspective. We could >> have a Netty(or other) version and a WAR version and I don't think it is >> that big of a deal to maintain. After all, we already have the component >> pieces as JARs, just bundle them up differently for Netty, etc. >> >> -Grant >> >> >> On May 3, 2013, at 8:09 PM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote: >> >>> But I'm really curious, what is the problem with Solr inside a >>> container? Which problem is this solving? I feel like I missed some >>> important thread.... which is highly possible. :) >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Otis >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Robert Muir <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> # rm -rf tomcat >>>> # gzip -dc solr.tgz | tar -xvf - >>>> # cd solr/example >>>> # java -jar start.jar >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Steve Molloy <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> So, if ever this passes, what would be the upgrade path for all the >>>>> deployments using Solr as a webapp inside tomcat or other container? >>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>> From: Michael McCandless [[email protected]] >>>>> Sent: May 3, 2013 12:09 PM >>>>> To: Lucene/Solr dev >>>>> Subject: Re: VOTE: solr no longer webapp >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:14 AM, Robert Muir <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> I think solr should no longer be a war file but a search app. I don't >>>>>> care >>>>>> how it accomplishes this: jetty, netty, its all up to us. >>>>>> >>>>>> Let me know your ideas: I think its a necessary step to move solr >>>>>> forwards. >>>>> >>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>>> Mike McCandless >>>>> >>>>> http://blog.mikemccandless.com >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> >> >> -------------------------------------------- >> Grant Ingersoll | @gsingers >> http://www.lucidworks.com >> >> >> >> >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > -------------------------------------------- Grant Ingersoll | @gsingers http://www.lucidworks.com
