lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Chris Male (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-4040) Improve QueryParser and supported syntax documentation
Date Wed, 09 May 2012 11:51:56 GMT


Chris Male commented on LUCENE-4040:

You raise an interesting point, some of the error messaging from the QPs is poor.  I've been
in a situation where users were able to express  complex queries themselves but would often
be confused by the error messages they received if a query didn't parse.  Some of this is
related to the parsing frameworks we use, some of it is that we could just do better.  I think
we'll tackle this in another issue but it's definitely part of the overall goal to give the
QPs a big facelift.

Would you be able to tackle the surround parser documentation? You seem to have experience
using it (I haven't) and understand its quirks.  Just throw up a patch and we'll iterate.
> Improve QueryParser and supported syntax documentation
> ------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: LUCENE-4040
>                 URL:
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: modules/queryparser
>            Reporter: Chris Male
>            Priority: Minor
> In LUCENE-4024 there were some changes to the fuzzy query syntax.  Only the Classic QueryParser
really documents its syntax, which makes it hard to know whether the changes effected other
QPs.  Compounding this issue there are many classes which have no javadocs at all and I found
myself quite confused when I consolidated all the QPs into their module.
> We should do a concerted effort to improve the documentation so that it is clear what
syntax is supported by what QPs and so that at least the user facing classes have javadocs.
> As part of this, I wonder whether we should give the syntax supported by the Classic
QueryParser a new name (rather than just Lucene's query syntax) since other QPs can and do
support other syntax, and then somehow add some typed control over this, so QPs have to declare
programmatically that they support the syntax and so we can verify that by randomly plugging
in implementations into tests.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see:


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message