Hi, I agree that people can register arbitrary qparsers, however the
question might have been understoo differently - about the ANLR parser
that can handle what solr qparser does (and that one is looking at
_query_: and similar stuff -- or at local params, which is what can be
copypasted into the business logic of the new parser; ie. the
solution might be similar to what is already done in solr qparser)
I think I'm going to try just that :)
So here is my working ANTLR grammar for Lucene in case anybody is interested:
https://github.com/romanchyla/montysolr/tree/master/src/java/org/apache/lucene/queryParser/iqp/antlr
And I plan to build now a wrapper that calls this parser to parse the
query, get the tree, then translate the tree into lucene query object.
The local stuff {} may not even be part of the grammar -- some unclear
ideas in here, but they will be sorted out...
roman
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
: I'm looking for an ANTLR parser that consumes solr queries and filters.
: Before I write my own, thought I'd ask if anyone has one they are
: willing to share or can point me to one?
I'm pretty sure that this will be imposisble to do in the general case --
arbitrary QParser instances (that support arbitrary syntax) can be
registered in the solrconfig.xml and specified using either localparams or
defType. so even if you did write a parser that understood all of the
rules of all of hte default QParsers, and even if you made your parser
smart enough to know how to look at other params (ie: defType, or
variable substitution of type) to understand which subset of parse rules
to use, that still might give false positives or false failures if hte
user registered their own QParser using a new name (or changed the
names used in registrating existing parsers)
The main question i have is: why are you looking for an ANTLR paser to do
this? what is your goal?
https://people.apache.org/~hossman/#xyproblem
Your question appears to be an XY Problem ... that is: you are dealing
with X, you are assuming Y will help you, and you are asking about Y
without giving more details about the X so that we can understand the
full issue. Perhaps the best solution doesn't involve Y at all?
See Also: http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=542341
-Hoss
