Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 57948 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2010 19:48:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 13 Aug 2010 19:48:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 6477 invoked by uid 500); 13 Aug 2010 19:48:37 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 6414 invoked by uid 500); 13 Aug 2010 19:48:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 6407 invoked by uid 99); 13 Aug 2010 19:48:37 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 19:48:37 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2000.0 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [140.211.11.22] (HELO thor.apache.org) (140.211.11.22) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 19:48:36 +0000 Received: from thor (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by thor.apache.org (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o7DJmGxT016477 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 19:48:16 GMT Message-ID: <32231973.338311281728896301.JavaMail.jira@thor> Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 15:48:16 -0400 (EDT) From: "Hoss Man (JIRA)" To: dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: [jira] Commented: (SOLR-2034) javabin should use UTF-8, not modified UTF-8 In-Reply-To: <28720781.241141281384076471.JavaMail.jira@thor> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2034?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12898391#action_12898391 ] Hoss Man commented on SOLR-2034: -------------------------------- +1 to the patch My only concern is upgrade compatibility -- it would be preferable if people upgrading either Solr or their SolrJ client (but not both at the exact same moment) would still have a functioning system. As i recall, the BinaryResponseWriter / Parser use a version param and version metadata in the response (just like the XmlResponseWriter) to indicate the codec version requested and the code version returned -- this seems like the kind of thing that should probably warrant a new coden impl with a new version number. that said: i didn't follow the details of the binary response writer / parser / codec implementation very closely, so i have no idea how hard it will be to make it all work smoothly for people: if it's a pain in the ass then i'm totally fine with saying that SolrJ 3.x can't talk to Solr 1.x (and vice versa) ... but we should still probably update the binary code version info to make it clear there is a difference > javabin should use UTF-8, not modified UTF-8 > -------------------------------------------- > > Key: SOLR-2034 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2034 > Project: Solr > Issue Type: Bug > Reporter: Robert Muir > Attachments: SOLR-2034.patch > > > for better interoperability, javabin should use standard UTF-8 instead of modified UTF-8 (http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr26/) -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org