On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: > How does it introduce any new requirements? Namespaces are easily ignored by > any XML client as they are if they weren't present. In other words, unless > the XML client has setValidating=true, then this isn't an issue.
I've run across cases where I added a schema declaration to an XML file and then things started failing. I think some parsers may default to validating if it sees that it can? Namespaces are to avoid name clashes. Solr XML is well defined and not arbitrary... adding <point> if we wish to do so won't introduce any clashes. > The only difference between what you call simple above and what I've > proposed (and correct me if I'm wrong but others have too) is that your > <point tag would include a namespace prefix and an xmlns attribute. What's > the difference? > >> It is worth using standards when they buy you enough.... I'm not sure >> this is one of those times. >> I'm sure there are standards for numeric types like <int> too... but >> using namespaces for that seems like overkill. > > There's a difference between a primitive type like int, and one like point. > Also, it all comes down to your use case. If the only thing you're ever > going to do with SOLR is have a SOLR client talk to it (Java, Ruby, whatever > PL you want) then namespaces/etc. might be overkill. But why open up the > response format then and advertise SOLR as something that provides REST-ful > services for search? REST-ful doesn't say anything about customizing the response format. > If that's the case, then users consuming those > responses need the flexibility to customize them for their use case > (validation, plugging into external GIS tools, etc.). So, I don't agree with > this. What GIS tool could deal with a Solr XML response format w/o any other knowledge of everything else in the response? Are there some real use cases that using a namespace vs not for point make easier (an honest question... I don't know much about GIS stuff). > All I've done is use what already exists. There doesn't need to be any > patches. XmlWriter#writePrim allowed you to do this before, see: Yeah, you can use that to output <long>false</long> too... but it will cause certain clients to barf. -Yonik http://www.lucidimagination.com
