: > OK, color me confused about how naming should be done for params. There : > clearly seems to be two camps in Solr-land: 1. those who abbreviate params : > and 2. those who don't. Pick your sides, please! ;-) : : Tend towards brevity, but not for the sake of readability.
agreed. for me it's primarily an issue of huffman encoding: 1) params that are going to be used all the freaking time, by lots of people, frequently when constructing URLs (which will get sent over the wire millions of times), should be on the shorter side (q, fl, sort, rows, etc...). 2) params that are going to be used extremely infrequently, and typically hardcoded inot a config in the rare cases where they are used, should be longer and more verbose (the verbosity being an issue of self documenting since people won't be use to seeing them and won't immediately recognize them) (Disclaimer: i freely admit that i screwed the pooch on all those dismax params. i came up with those back before it was possible to put defaults in solrconfig.xml, so the "keep things that will be in millions of URLs going over teh wire" mantra kicked in) -Hoss
