On 8/22/06, Yonik Seeley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...So you would say LowerCaseFilter instead of LowerCaseFilterFactory...
I like the idea, as long as it's made sufficiently transparent.
For example by logging a warning when a Factory is not found and the
component is created by reflection.
: thanks for the answer, I am also interested in the jdbc connectivity.
Sorry, i thought that was and if not clause on your question.
I've heard of some attempts at extending Lucene's Directory with a RDBMS
backed implimentation -- from what i'm told they tend to focus on modeling
lucene files
: - if no factory can be found, an attempt will be made to construct
: one dynamically (easiest would be to create a generic factory that
: works via reflection). People could use simple filters w/o creating a
: factory for it.
I think i mentioned this before ... my opinion depends on what the
Hi,
In the comments of my article at xml.com [1], someone's asking whether
Solr supports the upcoming UIMA standard [2].
I was going to answer not at this time, but if someone has
additional information about UIMA in relation to Solr or Lucene, it is
welcome.
-Bertrand
[1]
What exactly is the UIMA standard? I didn't see a standard
mentioned at the UIMA site.
Erik
On Aug 23, 2006, at 4:40 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Hi,
In the comments of my article at xml.com [1], someone's asking whether
Solr supports the upcoming UIMA standard [2].
I was
On 8/23/06, Erik Hatcher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What exactly is the UIMA standard? I didn't see a standard
mentioned at the UIMA site...
I don't know if standard is the correct word, but [1] mentions an
IBM product that exposes the UIMA interfaces, so there must be an
API of some kind. But
Hi,
I thought we discussed this already, mostly concluding UIMA was an
IBM-proprietary bear that's not only far from a standard at this
point, but not that promising and therefore not worth pursuing. But
it could be that we didn't actually have that discussion on this
mailing list: I may have
Mike Klaas commented on SOLR-43:
One thing I believe that was lost in this patch is static (source-level)
defaults for parameters. Presumably these would be defined using another level
of defaul parameters which is a static member of CommonParams or somesuch?
I assume you mean the default
We (Solr devs) never discussed it... A quick gmail search shows it's
been brought up on the Lucene and Nutch lists.
-Yonik
On 8/23/06, Yoav Shapira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I thought we discussed this already, mostly concluding UIMA was an
IBM-proprietary bear that's not only far from a
Check out Geronimo's new Wiki it only looks 10 times better than moin-moin.
http://cwiki.apache.org/geronimo/
-Yonik
On 8/23/06, Yonik Seeley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We (Solr devs) never discussed it... A quick gmail search shows it's
been brought up on the Lucene and Nutch lists
FYI, an UIMA proposal just landed at the incubator: http://tinyurl.com/m3taj
-Bertrand
JIRA didn't send my comments to the list for some reason (or I just
never received it). I'll cc here:
Committed current version.
Left to do off the top of my head:
- deprecate methods dealing with params in PluginUtils
- change use of deprecated methods (including dismax handler)
- dismax
12 matches
Mail list logo
