Hi,
Patching did work. but when i build the trunk, i get the following
exception:
[SolrTrunk]# ant compile
Buildfile: /testWorkspace/SolrTrunk/build.xml
init-forrest-entities:
[mkdir] Created dir: /testWorkspace/SolrTrunk/build
[mkdir] Created dir: /testWorkspace/SolrTrunk/build/web
compile-lucene:
BUILD FAILED
/testWorkspace/SolrTrunk/common-build.xml:207:
/testWorkspace/modules/analysis/common does not exist.
Regards,
Raakhi
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:39 AM, Martijn v Groningen <
martijn.is.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What exactly did not work? Patching, compiling or running it?
>
> On 22 June 2010 16:06, Rakhi Khatwani <rkhatw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I tried checking out the latest code (rev 956715) the patch did not
> > work on it.
> > Infact i even tried hunting for the revision mentioned earlier in this
> > thread (i.e. rev 955615) but cannot find it in the repository. (it has
> > revision 955569 followed by revision 955785).
> >
> > Any pointers??
> > Regards
> > Raakhi
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 2:03 AM, Martijn v Groningen <
> > martijn.is.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 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
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Met vriendelijke groet,
>
> Martijn van Groningen
>
