Oh in that case is the code stable enough to use it for production?
- Well this feature is a patch and I think that says it all.
Although bugs are fixed it is deferentially an experimental feature
and people should keep that in mind when using one of the patches.
Does it support features which solr 1.4 normally supports?
- As far as I know yes.
am using facets as a workaround but then i am not able to sort on any
other field. is there any workaround to support this feature??
- Maybee http://wiki.apache.org/solr/Deduplication prevents from
adding duplicates in you index, but then you miss the collapse counts
and other computed values
On 21 June 2010 09:04, Rakhi Khatwani <rkhatw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> Oh in that case is the code stable enough to use it for production?
> Does it support features which solr 1.4 normally supports?
>
> I am using facets as a workaround but then i am not able to sort on any
> other field. is there any workaround to support this feature??
>
> Regards,
> Raakhi
>
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Martijn v Groningen <
> martijn.is.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Rakhi,
>>
>> The patch is not compatible with 1.4. If you want to work with the
>> trunk. I'll need to get the src from
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/trunk/
>>
>> Martijn
>>
>> On 18 June 2010 13:46, Rakhi Khatwani <rkhatw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi Moazzam,
>> >
>> > Where did u get the src code from??
>> >
>> > I am downloading it from
>> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/solr/branches/branch-1.4
>> >
>> > and the latest revision in this location is 955469.
>> >
>> > so applying the latest patch(dated 17th june 2010) on it still generates
>> > errors.
>> >
>> > Any Pointers?
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Raakhi
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Moazzam Khan <moazz...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I knew it wasn't me! :)
>> >>
>> >> I found the patch just before I read this and applied it to the trunk
>> >> and it works!
>> >>
>> >> Thanks Mark and martijn for all your help!
>> >>
>> >> - Moazzam
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Martijn v Groningen
>> >> <martijn.is.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > I've added a new patch to the issue, so building the trunk (rev
>> >> > 955615) with the latest patch should not be a problem. Due to recent
>> >> > changes in the Lucene trunk the patch was not compatible.
>> >> >
>> >> > On 17 June 2010 20:20, Erik Hatcher <erik.hatc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Jun 16, 2010, at 7:31 PM, Mark Diggory wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> p.s. I'd be glad to contribute our Maven build re-organization back
>> to
>> >> the
>> >> >>> community to get Solr properly Mavenized so that it can be
>> distributed
>> >> and
>> >> >>> released more often. For us the benefit of this structure is that
>> we
>> >> will
>> >> >>> be able to overlay addons such as RequestHandlers and other third
>> party
>> >> >>> support without having to rebuild Solr from scratch.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But you don't have to rebuild Solr from scratch to add a new request
>> >> handler
>> >> >> or other plugins - simply compile your custom stuff into a JAR and
>> put
>> >> it in
>> >> >> <solr-home>/lib (or point to it with <lib> in solrconfig.xml).
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Ideally, a Maven Archetype could be created that would allow one
>> >> rapidly
>> >> >>> produce a Solr webapp and fire it up in Jetty in mere seconds.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How's that any different than cd example; java -jar start.jar? Or do
>> >> you
>> >> >> mean a Solr client webapp?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Finally, with projects such as Bobo, integration with Spring would
>> make
>> >> >>> configuration more consistent and request significantly less java
>> >> coding
>> >> >>> just to add new capabilities everytime someone authors a new
>> >> RequestHandler.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It's one line of config to add a new request handler. How many
>> >> ridiculously
>> >> >> ugly confusing lines of Spring XML would it take?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> The biggest thing I learned about Solr in my work thusfar is that
>> >> patches
>> >> >>> like these could be standalone modules in separate projects if it
>> >> weren't
>> >> >>> for having to hack the configuration and solrj methods up to adopt
>> >> them.
>> >> >>> Which brings me to SolrJ, great API if it would stay generic and
>> have
>> >> less
>> >> >>> concern for adding method each time some custom collections and
>> query
>> >> >>> support for morelikethis or collapseddocs needs to be added.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I personally find it silly that we customize SolrJ for all these
>> request
>> >> >> handlers anyway. You get a decent navigable data structure back from
>> >> >> general SolrJ query requests as it is, there's no need to build in
>> all
>> >> these
>> >> >> convenience methods specific to all the Solr componetry. Sure, it's
>> >> >> "convenient", but it's a maintenance headache and as you say, not
>> >> generic.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But hacking configuration is reasonable, I think, for adding in
>> plugins.
>> >> I
>> >> >> guess you're aiming for some kind of Spring-like auto-discovery of
>> >> plugins?
>> >> >> Yeah, maybe, but I'm pretty -1 on Spring coming into Solr. It's
>> >> overkill
>> >> >> and ugly, IMO. But you like it :) And that's cool by me, to each
>> their
>> >> >> own.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Oh, and Hi Mark! :)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Erik
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Met vriendelijke groet,
>> >> >
>> >> > Martijn van Groningen
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
--
Met vriendelijke groet,
Martijn van Groningen
