On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 6:50 PM, Jason Rutherglen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I also think it's got a > lot of things now which makes integration difficult to do properly.
I agree, and that's why the major bump in version number rather than minor - we recognize that some features will need some amount of rearchitecture. > I think the problem with integration with SOLR is it was designed with > a different problem set in mind than Ocean, originally the CNET > shopping application. That was the first use of Solr, but it actually existed before that w/o any defined use other than to be a "plan B" alternative to MySQL based search servers (that's actually where some of the parameter names come from... the default /select URL instead of /search, the "rows" parameter, etc). But you're right... some things like the replication strategy were designed (well, borrowed from Doug to be exact) with the idea that it would be OK to have slightly "stale" views of the data in the range of minutes. It just made things easier/possible at the time. But tons of Solr and Lucene users want almost instantaneous visibility of added documents, if they can get it. It's hardly restricted to social network applications. Bottom line is that Solr aims to be a general enterprise search platform, and getting as real-time as we can get, and as scalable as we can get are some of the top priorities going forward. -Yonik --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
