On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Tim Williams <twilli...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Martin Cooper<mart...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Tim Williams <twilli...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> > >> I'm wanting to implement an antlr lexer/parser grammar for CQL[1] and > >> related tree grammars for translation to concrete search > >> implementations (e.g. Lucene). There are places where some of the > >> institutional knowledge is captured in verbose queries, having > >> something like CQL as an "esperanto" of query grammars lets them more > >> easily change search technologies over time and/or run multiple search > >> technologies at the same time and not be wed to a specific > >> implementation. This, I think, should be a fairly smallish effort and > >> appropriate for a lab? > > > > Could you compare the suitability of a lab for this versus, for example, > > something in the Lucene Sandbox? (I'm not against a lab for this, just > > interested in why one would choose one approach over the other.) > > Hi Martin, > Sure, if it works like I envision it, Lucene would just be *one* > concrete tree grammar implementation - there could be others (ie > OracleText), I'm thinking it is broader than one implementation - > otherwise, I reckon it's Yet Another Lucene Query Parser (YALQP). > > For more practical reasons, I'm not a Lucene committer and it'd be > slow going to play around with this through JIRA patches to their > sandbox. Fair enough. I'm +1 for a lab, then. -- Martin Cooper --tim > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: labs-unsubscr...@labs.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: labs-h...@labs.apache.org > >
