lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael McCandless <luc...@mikemccandless.com>
Subject Re: basic questions on the new QueryParser
Date Tue, 04 Aug 2009 18:41:43 GMT
OK I will open an issue to further iterate on this...

Mike

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 1:34 AM, Adriano
Crestani<adrianocrestani@gmail.com> wrote:
> The "original" and "helper" aren't that descriptive to users.
>
> It's named "helper" because it extends QueryParserHelper, that's the only
> reason. I think it's ok to rename "original" to something else. . I also
> share Mike's opinion, I prefer "default" over "original".
>
> Mike - isn't "fast forwarding 3 years" means that the current QP will be
> removed, together w/ the OriginalQPHelper and we'll have just one QP?
>
> OriginalQPHelper is not intended to be removed, it should be the new simple
> way to use the query parser. So, I agree with Mike, now is the best time to
> name it, while it's not released yet.
>
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 8:18 PM, Shai Erera <serera@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Mike - isn't "fast forwarding 3 years" means that the current QP will be
>> removed, together w/ the OriginalQPHelper and we'll have just one QP? And
>> I'd think we'll want to call it Default or something, so users can
>> distinguish between it (which parses the Lucene query syntax) and another
>> custom parser they wrote for their own syntax.
>>
>> I agree that the current name is not too descriptive, but perhaps since
>> it's just temporary it's not that bad? Add to that that 'Default' might be
>> used after 3.0 to refer to the new QP which parses the Lucene syntax, and
>> users will be confused w/ the 'Default' in 2.9 vs. the new one.
>>
>> Maybe we can call it OldQPHelper, to encourage people to move faster to
>> the new one?
>>
>> Shai
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 2:47 AM, Luis Alves <lafadev@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Michael McCandless wrote:
>>>
>>> OK thanks for the clarification... that makes sense.  So the builder
>>> should really be a "rote" translation of a query node into the
>>> corresponding Query.  All "interesting" work should instead be done by
>>> the processors (or maybe the parser).
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Mike,
>>>
>>> Only the Processors should do "interesting" work, it is the only API that
>>> has access
>>> to the QueryConfigHandler by design.
>>>
>>> QueryConfigHandler - should hold all the information necessary to
>>> generate queries for the
>>> specified index or system where it is being used. Example: field
>>> configuration, index configuration,
>>> any other configuration that is useful to generate the queries.
>>>
>>> SyntaxParser implementation should avoid doing "interesting" work, it
>>> should do the minimum
>>> to create a syntax a tree that represents the user query and pass it to a
>>> QueryNodeProcessor
>>> pipeline for the "interesting" work.
>>>
>>> --
>>> -Lafa
>>>
>>
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message