labs-labs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Williams <twilli...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Lab - Esqueranto
Date Sun, 02 Aug 2009 17:43:19 GMT
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Martin Cooper<martinc@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Tim Williams <twilliams@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> I'm wanting to implement an antlr lexer/parser grammar for CQL[1] and
>> related tree grammars for translation to concrete search
>> implementations (e.g. Lucene).  There are places where some of the
>> institutional knowledge is captured in verbose queries, having
>> something like CQL as an "esperanto" of query grammars lets them more
>> easily change search technologies over time and/or run multiple search
>> technologies at the same time and not be wed to a specific
>> implementation.  This, I think, should be a fairly smallish effort and
>> appropriate for a lab?
>
> Could you compare the suitability of a lab for this versus, for example,
> something in the Lucene Sandbox? (I'm not against a lab for this, just
> interested in why one would choose one approach over the other.)

Hi Martin,
Sure, if it works like I envision it, Lucene would just be *one*
concrete tree grammar implementation - there could be others (ie
OracleText), I'm thinking it is broader than one implementation -
otherwise, I reckon it's Yet Another Lucene Query Parser (YALQP).

For more practical reasons, I'm not a Lucene committer and it'd be
slow going to play around with this through JIRA patches to their
sandbox.

--tim

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: labs-unsubscribe@labs.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: labs-help@labs.apache.org


Mime
View raw message