I felt that V2's lack of support for defaults was a serious architectural issue that is hard to just close eyes on.
Regards, Alex On Tue., Oct. 26, 2021, 3:17 p.m. Eric Pugh, < [email protected]> wrote: > I’d very much like to see this as well. > > I’ve been thinking that I would look to migrate the Solr Admin to using > the v2 API, and I suspect it will identify any number of gaps/areas of > improvement in the v2 API itself. > > > > > On Oct 26, 2021, at 3:10 PM, Jason Gerlowski <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi all, > > I'm starting this thread to highlight a subject that came up in the > recent "Solr 9.0 Release Blockers" thread: our v2 API. As a TL;DR, > should the v2 API be considered "experimental"? > > We haven't explicitly called the v2 API experimental up to this point, > but I'd argue that in essence it already is. In previous releases it > was largely undocumented, had little or no SolrJ support, missed > parity with v1 in terms of endpoints and parameters, and wasn't > included in test randomization. It's hard to imagine how someone > could have been using the v2 API nontrivially in our past releases. > > Treating v2 as "experimental" just feels much more like calling a > "spade" a "spade", and sends a more accurate signal to our users. It > would also have practical benefits: experimental code is traditionally > free from backcompat guarantees, so an "experimental" designation > would remove a big impediment for those improving the v2 API. > > Knowingly setting backcompat aside is always scary, and of course, we > don't have any means to know for sure how many users v2 has today. > But if we judge from the few signals we do have, the number must be > very small. e.g. The last user-list email that mentions a v2 API path > is "Atomic update error with JSON handler" from May of 2018! > > Potential backcompat breaks might inconvenience that small set of > users, but that inconvenience would be vastly outweighed by the > benefit to all our users of getting a cleaner, more consistent API out > sooner. > > Anyway, that's my pitch. Would love to hear what people think about the > idea. > > Best, > > Jason > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > <[email protected]> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > <[email protected]> > > > _______________________ > *Eric Pugh **| *Founder & CEO | OpenSource Connections, LLC | 434.466.1467 > | http://www.opensourceconnections.com | My Free/Busy > <http://tinyurl.com/eric-cal> > Co-Author: Apache Solr Enterprise Search Server, 3rd Ed > <https://www.packtpub.com/big-data-and-business-intelligence/apache-solr-enterprise-search-server-third-edition-raw> > This e-mail and all contents, including attachments, is considered to be > Company Confidential unless explicitly stated otherwise, regardless > of whether attachments are marked as such. > >
