> But I think there's a strong case that these users are a tiny > tiny minority out there: see the past lack of v2 docs, SolrJ support, > mailing list traffic or bug reports on v2, etc. >
Well I'm guilty of having documented it in documentation I wrote or significantly modified, which ironically seems possibly problematic now. Query to the Users list on how many folks are using it might be of interest. > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 10:34 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > While the v2 has been out for a long time, do we actually have > evidence that it is widely used and has significant code written against it? > > > > I don't think anyone uses V2 APIs. No one wants to use undocumented APIs. > > > > > I worry that deciding to go with v3 it going to prevent any forward > progress > > > > Instead of worrying about v3, I think we should just make v2 the default > to drive up adoption and fix it as we go along. APIs will never improve if > no one uses it. And no one will use it if we don't document it properly. > > > > > What if we dropped the term “experimental”, because that implies that > the v2 API might not be actually adopted…. > > +1 > > > > > What if we say “v1 is the Long Term Supported version of the API, and > v2 is the evolving to be better and better API, monitor the release notes > for the changes ;-)" > > > > I would rather that we say v1 is old and crappy and we'll drop support > for it soon. V2 is evolving to be better API, and you're encouraged to use > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 7:48 PM Eric Pugh < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> While the v2 has been out for a long time, do we actually have evidence > that it is widely used and has significant code written against it? > >> > >> When I look at various components/packages that have been written > around Solr, I don’t see the v2 API used. For example, Project Blacklight, > a UI for Solr is solidly on v1. > >> > >> I worry that deciding to go with v3 it going to prevent any forward > progress…. Having gone through the effort to document v2 in the Ref Guide, > I’m not dying to now go and add a v3 for all the examples ;-(. I’d > rather just update the v2 in place and celebrate the “9.1 has cleaned up > the X API, come check out the new support for Y” ;-) > >> > >> What if we dropped the term “experimental”, because that implies that > the v2 API might not be actually adopted…. > >> > >> What if we say “v1 is the Long Term Supported version of the API, and > v2 is the evolving to be better and better API, monitor the release notes > for the changes ;-)" > >> > >> > >> > >> On Oct 27, 2021, at 9:07 AM, Gus Heck <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> And I think v1/v2 should be split into their own servlets leveraging > common code by calling utilities, or composing with other objects rather > than inheriting and getting in each other's way. I think v2 could change a > lot so experimental seems appropriate, but unfortunately it's been released > without that moniker for a long time... we may need to go v3 if we want to > change things since people will understandably have written code against it. > >> > >> On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 11:01 PM Alexandre Rafalovitch < > [email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> 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] > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________ > >>>> Eric Pugh | Founder & CEO | OpenSource Connections, LLC | > 434.466.1467 | http://www.opensourceconnections.com | My Free/Busy > >>>> Co-Author: Apache Solr Enterprise Search Server, 3rd Ed > >>>> 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. > >>>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) > >> http://www.the111shift.com (play) > >> > >> > >> _______________________ > >> Eric Pugh | Founder & CEO | OpenSource Connections, LLC | 434.466.1467 > | http://www.opensourceconnections.com | My Free/Busy > >> Co-Author: Apache Solr Enterprise Search Server, 3rd Ed > >> 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. > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > -- http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) http://www.the111shift.com (play)
