On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Noble Paul നോബിള് नोब्ळ् <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK . Could you guys give some quick feedback on SOLR-828 and SOLR-810 > > If I get early feedback I may be able to avoid rewrites.
Took a very quick look. Seems like documents should have a version or revision number instead of a "COMMITTED" column. I'm not sure how the whole scheme is supposed to work though. It might be helpful to describe how things work w/o reference to specific UpdateProcessor methods - that gets too much into implementation. Also, in Solr-828 please move the big description into a comment (the description field is echoed on every update, so it should be kept small). -Yonik > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:14 PM, Noble Paul നോബിള് नोब्ळ् > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> OK . So , I'll stick to JDBC. Derby looks like the best bet >> >> If we must ship it along w/ Solr it is another 2.6MB jar (embdded >> version) with the distro. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:35 PM, Jason Rutherglen >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> It's mostly dead and synchronizes on reads and writes. >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 7:46 AM, Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Andrzej Bialecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> wrote: >>>> > Please consider using JDBM, now in the Apache incubator, >>>> >>>> It doesn't look like it's in the incubator yet... there was interest, >>>> but a proposal was never put on the wiki. >>>> >>>> > but with a long >>>> > history at SF.net and wide usage. Its API is essentially the same as BDB. >>>> >>>> You wouldn't be able to tell by the SourceForge page - it has the look >>>> of a dead project. >>>> >>>> -Yonik >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> --Noble Paul >> > > > > -- > --Noble Paul >
