You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to solr-dev@lucene.apache.org by Erik Hatcher <er...@ehatchersolutions.com> on 2007/02/01 05:04:59 UTC
Re: svn commit: r501512 - in /lucene/solr/trunk: ./ src/java/org/apache/solr/core/ src/java/org/apache/solr/handler/ src/java/org/apache/solr/request/ src/java/org/apache/solr/search/ src/java/org/apache/solr/update/ src/java/org/apache/solr/util/
TODO: switch solrb to using wt=json instead of wt=ruby.
Whatcha think, Ed et al?
Erik
On Jan 30, 2007, at 1:36 PM, yonik@apache.org wrote:
> Author: yonik
> Date: Tue Jan 30 10:36:32 2007
> New Revision: 501512
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=501512
> Log:
> SimpleOrderedMap, JSON named list changes: SOLR-125
Re: svn commit: r501512 - in /lucene/solr/trunk: ./ src/java/org/apache/solr/core/ src/java/org/apache/solr/handler/ src/java/org/apache/solr/request/ src/java/org/apache/solr/search/ src/java/org/apache/solr/update/ src/java/org/apache/solr/util/
Posted by Yonik Seeley <yo...@apache.org>.
On 2/1/07, Erik Hatcher <er...@ehatchersolutions.com> wrote:
>
> On Feb 1, 2007, at 1:21 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> > Bear in mind that json params like json.nl apply to it's subtypes,
> > ruby and python also.
>
> Oh! Now *that* I overlooked.
Yes, it probably broke your current facet stuff :-)
> Interesting bit of trivia. Maybe we
> should change the parameter to "format.nl" instead, or something
> besides "json"?
It only applies to JSON and friends though... it has no effect on XML
(unless we want to change that, and maybe have different defaults for
XML and JSON)
-Yonik
Re: svn commit: r501512 - in /lucene/solr/trunk: ./ src/java/org/apache/solr/core/ src/java/org/apache/solr/handler/ src/java/org/apache/solr/request/ src/java/org/apache/solr/search/ src/java/org/apache/solr/update/ src/java/org/apache/solr/util/
Posted by Erik Hatcher <er...@ehatchersolutions.com>.
On Feb 1, 2007, at 1:21 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> Bear in mind that json params like json.nl apply to it's subtypes,
> ruby and python also.
Oh! Now *that* I overlooked. Interesting bit of trivia. Maybe we
should change the parameter to "format.nl" instead, or something
besides "json"?
Erik
Re: svn commit: r501512 - in /lucene/solr/trunk: ./ src/java/org/apache/solr/core/ src/java/org/apache/solr/handler/ src/java/org/apache/solr/request/ src/java/org/apache/solr/search/ src/java/org/apache/solr/update/ src/java/org/apache/solr/util/
Posted by Yonik Seeley <yo...@apache.org>.
On 2/1/07, Erik Hatcher <er...@ehatchersolutions.com> wrote:
> On Jan 31, 2007, at 11:08 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
>
> > On 1/31/07, Erik Hatcher <er...@ehatchersolutions.com> wrote:
> >> TODO: switch solrb to using wt=json instead of wt=ruby.
> >
> > Why is that?
>
> To benefit from a richer data structure,
They seem to have the same power there.
Bear in mind that json params like json.nl apply to it's subtypes,
ruby and python also.
> avoid eval (which I hear is
> likely to be slower than parsing JSON,
If the JSON parser is written in C, yes. Otherwise, I doubt it :-)
> and eval is potentially more
> dangerous if code somehow got slipped in though that risk is not very
> high).
Yeah, I guess someone would have to say, "here, point your client at
my solr system", and then they could be running something else that
gives you executable code. But they could also just give you bogus
data, so it's bad to point at random things anyway. (but I guess it
it *is* worse if you are trying to operate in some federated mode
across the internet with unknown peers).
> The downside is that we'd need to add a dependency on a JSON parsing
> library. JSON is close enough to Ruby syntax that it can practically
> be eval'd, interestingly, but I don't think it's close enough.
>
> Erik
Re: svn commit: r501512 - in /lucene/solr/trunk: ./ src/java/org/apache/solr/core/ src/java/org/apache/solr/handler/ src/java/org/apache/solr/request/ src/java/org/apache/solr/search/ src/java/org/apache/solr/update/ src/java/org/apache/solr/util/
Posted by Erik Hatcher <er...@ehatchersolutions.com>.
On Jan 31, 2007, at 11:08 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> On 1/31/07, Erik Hatcher <er...@ehatchersolutions.com> wrote:
>> TODO: switch solrb to using wt=json instead of wt=ruby.
>
> Why is that?
To benefit from a richer data structure, avoid eval (which I hear is
likely to be slower than parsing JSON, and eval is potentially more
dangerous if code somehow got slipped in though that risk is not very
high).
The downside is that we'd need to add a dependency on a JSON parsing
library. JSON is close enough to Ruby syntax that it can practically
be eval'd, interestingly, but I don't think it's close enough.
Erik
Re: svn commit: r501512 - in /lucene/solr/trunk: ./ src/java/org/apache/solr/core/ src/java/org/apache/solr/handler/ src/java/org/apache/solr/request/ src/java/org/apache/solr/search/ src/java/org/apache/solr/update/ src/java/org/apache/solr/util/
Posted by Yonik Seeley <yo...@apache.org>.
On 1/31/07, Erik Hatcher <er...@ehatchersolutions.com> wrote:
> TODO: switch solrb to using wt=json instead of wt=ruby.
Why is that?
-Yonik