lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
Subject Trust in new flexible StandardQueryParser?
Date Mon, 09 Jul 2012 11:57:34 GMT
Hi folks,

we really like the flexible QueryParser. We already used it for a Verity-Syntax Parser and
it worked well.
But now we want to use the Standard-Lucene-Syntax with some additions.
Can we trust in  StandardQueryParser or should(must) we use the classic QueryParser?

For project safety we don't want to switch to solr 4.x this year. So we need a working StandardQueryParser
in Version 3.X.
We already opened issue LUCENE-4109 and hoped that this will also be fixed in 3.6.1 (like
LUCENE-2566). But this is not the only problem with  StandardQueryParser:

First I do not understand why StandardSyntaxParser.jj is not the same in 3.6branch and 4.0trunk.
Does this mean, that 3X will not be supported any more for StandardQueryParser?

Second I switched QueryParserTestBase in trunk from classic.QueryParser to flexible.standard.StandardQueryParser
and saw some failed tests.
Does this mean that StandardQueryParser should not do the same as  classic.QueryParser?

So again: Should we trust in StandardQueryParser?
I would like to support the bugfixing :-)

Best regards

P.S. Failures in QueryParserTestBase if using StandardQueryParser:
  * assertQueryEquals("[\\* TO \"*\"]",null,"[\\* TO \\*]");
    → result is "[\\* TO *]" instead
  * assertQueryEquals("a:b\\-?c", a, "a:b\\-?c");
    → result is "a:b-?c" instead
  * assertQueryEquals("a - b", a, "a – b");
    → result is "a -b" instead

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

View raw message