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 Yonik Seeley <ys...@gmail.com> on 2006/01/26 03:56:44 UTC
solr libraries
Solr needs a servlet-api.jar to compile against.
I had grabbed the one (servlet v2.4) from Tomcat 5.5, is this the
right approach? Any reason not to use this version?
Performance sensitive XML parsing is currently done using XPP3
(non-performance sensitive config is parsed with Java5 builtin DOM &
xpath). Anyone know if that's OK from a licensing perspective?
-Yonik
Re: solr libraries
Posted by Yonik Seeley <ys...@gmail.com>.
StAX seems like it as caught on...
http://woodstox.codehaus.org/ would probably be the thing to use to
replace XPP3 (I used the XPP3 native interface, so a switch would
require development).
-Yonik
On 1/26/06, Otis Gospodnetic <ot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> Solr needs a servlet-api.jar to compile against.
> I had grabbed the one (servlet v2.4) from Tomcat 5.5, is this the
> right approach? Any reason not to use this version?
>
> OG: I think this is fine, as long as there is nothing Tomcat-specific in there (i.e. as long as everything can run in Jetty, Resin, or ...) 2.4 is more or less the latest.
>
> Performance sensitive XML parsing is currently done using XPP3
> (non-performance sensitive config is parsed with Java5 builtin DOM &
> xpath). Anyone know if that's OK from a licensing perspective?
>
> OG: I don't know. This is what I found: http://cvs.codehaus.org/viewrep/~raw,r=4/xjb/trunk/xjb/etc/xpp3-license.txt
> Maybe general@... would be a good place to ask.
>
> Otis
>
>
>
>
Re: solr libraries
Posted by Bill Au <bi...@gmail.com>.
I agree that we should put the version info in the name of the jar files.
It makes it a lot easier to tell what version are being used.
Bill
On 1/26/06, Yonik Seeley <ys...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I did that because my IDE projects refer to exact filenames, and it
> makes it more painful when they keep changing.
>
> I'm OK with changing them in the interest of being more standard though.
>
> -Yonik
>
> On 1/26/06, Doug Cutting <cu...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
> > > Solr needs a servlet-api.jar to compile against.
> > > I had grabbed the one (servlet v2.4) from Tomcat 5.5, is this the
> > > right approach? Any reason not to use this version?
> >
> > It is a good practice to provide version information with jar files. So
> > this might better be named servlet-api-2.4.jar, or perhaps
> > tomcat-5.5-servelet-api.jar.
> >
> > Similarly, xpp3.jar should have a version number in its name too.
> >
> > Doug
> >
>
Re: solr libraries
Posted by Yonik Seeley <ys...@gmail.com>.
I did that because my IDE projects refer to exact filenames, and it
makes it more painful when they keep changing.
I'm OK with changing them in the interest of being more standard though.
-Yonik
On 1/26/06, Doug Cutting <cu...@apache.org> wrote:
> Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
> > Solr needs a servlet-api.jar to compile against.
> > I had grabbed the one (servlet v2.4) from Tomcat 5.5, is this the
> > right approach? Any reason not to use this version?
>
> It is a good practice to provide version information with jar files. So
> this might better be named servlet-api-2.4.jar, or perhaps
> tomcat-5.5-servelet-api.jar.
>
> Similarly, xpp3.jar should have a version number in its name too.
>
> Doug
>
Re: solr libraries
Posted by Doug Cutting <cu...@apache.org>.
Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
> Solr needs a servlet-api.jar to compile against.
> I had grabbed the one (servlet v2.4) from Tomcat 5.5, is this the
> right approach? Any reason not to use this version?
It is a good practice to provide version information with jar files. So
this might better be named servlet-api-2.4.jar, or perhaps
tomcat-5.5-servelet-api.jar.
Similarly, xpp3.jar should have a version number in its name too.
Doug
Re: solr libraries
Posted by Otis Gospodnetic <ot...@yahoo.com>.
Hi,
Solr needs a servlet-api.jar to compile against.
I had grabbed the one (servlet v2.4) from Tomcat 5.5, is this the
right approach? Any reason not to use this version?
OG: I think this is fine, as long as there is nothing Tomcat-specific in there (i.e. as long as everything can run in Jetty, Resin, or ...) 2.4 is more or less the latest.
Performance sensitive XML parsing is currently done using XPP3
(non-performance sensitive config is parsed with Java5 builtin DOM &
xpath). Anyone know if that's OK from a licensing perspective?
OG: I don't know. This is what I found: http://cvs.codehaus.org/viewrep/~raw,r=4/xjb/trunk/xjb/etc/xpp3-license.txt
Maybe general@... would be a good place to ask.
Otis