lucene-ruby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Mitchell <goodie...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: solr-ruby - let's get a 1.0!
Date Thu, 09 Apr 2009 18:30:17 GMT
So others know... RSolr had some of the object oriented document code
underneath the covers. But just a few days ago, Mat generously created a
patch to expose the option of adding document objects instead of hashes
only. Thanks Mat! Have you had a chance to check out the latest version?

I think that RSolr now looks a lot like what we talked about here:
http://markmail.org/message/ujesla5hdgch7xrd

I hope that people will continue to give feedback. Any other ruby+solr users
out there?

Matt

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 6:52 PM, outoftime <mat@patch.com> wrote:

>
> Hi all - just wanted to give a big +1 to Matt on this one. I've been
> working
> for a while on a higher-level Solr library in Ruby called Sunspot that
> allows easy indexing/searching of Ruby objects (using a prepackaged
> schema.xml, etc), abstracting all Solr/Lucene syntax away from the API
> consumer.
>
> The current (incomplete) version is built on solr-ruby, but a while ago I
> came across the LocalSolr plugin and thought it would be lovely to include
> LocalSolr support in Sunspot. I began looking for an alternative to
> solr-ruby that would allow me to cleanly use parameters and query types
> that
> aren't part of Solr core, and ran across RSolr. I think passing params
> through transparently is absolutely the right approach here - thus
> developers of higher-level APIs, or application developers who want to
> interact directly with Solr at a low level, are free to add integration
> with
> whatever Solr extensions they might need, without any explicit support from
> the Solr adapter layer.
>
> Having the option of using curb with no extra effort is also a huge bonus.
>
> One thing I'd like to see in RSolr/solr-ruby 1.0 is an object-oriented
> approach to building documents - in particular, it would be nice to have
> fine-grained control over field boost and that sort of thing, and having an
> explicit Document object would be an intuitive way to do that. Here's a
> simple example from an email discussion (that's been on hold for a few
> weeks
> - sorry Matt!) that Matt and I have been having:
>
>  doc = RSolr::Document.new
>  doc.id = 12
>  doc.add_field('title_s', 'My Title', :boost => 2.0)
>  solr.add(doc)
>
> It would make sense to me to have this be RSolr/solr-ruby's internal
> representation of documents, with appropriate conversion from the simpler
> hash format when that is sufficient for API users' expression of documents.
> If time allows, I'm hoping to contribute a patch to RSolr to this effect in
> the near future, but of course it would be interesting to hear everyone's
> thoughts.
>
> If anyone's curious, Sunspot is at http://github.com/outoftime/sunspot -
> comments, criticism, etc. more than welcome.
>
> Thanks!
> Mat
>
>
> goodieboy wrote:
> >
> > Solr-Ruby folks,
> >
> > A while ago, I started some discussions about updating solr-ruby. Some of
> > the things I brought up were related to the way that solr-ruby handles
> > param
> > mapping and response/request handling. Other folks have expressed the
> need
> > for jRuby support.
> >
> > In an effort to get some development happening on this front, Erik
> Hatcher
> > created a refectoring branch within the solr-ruby repo. I ended up doing
> > my
> > own development in a github repository because I had all kinds of nutty
> > ideas, and didn't want to bombard Erik with patches.
> >
> > I now have what I'm considering to be a very solid code base, complete
> > with
> > jRuby support. This library does no param mapping, and no
> request/response
> > class mapping; what you put in is what Solr gets, and what Solr returns
> is
> > what you get. In addition, it features a http adapter layer, so you can
> > switch between different http client implementations. The built in
> > adapters
> > are Net::HTTP and Curb. Etc..
> >
> > I'm asking the solr-ruby community (YOU!) to please have a look at this
> > library and offer your thoughts/opinions on it's capabilities and design.
> > Do
> > you seen this as a possible refectored base for solr-ruby? Is there
> > anything
> > there that you think could benefit solr-ruby? What are your thoughts on
> > getting solr-ruby to a 1.0 release?
> >
> > Here's the library I've been working on:
> > http://github.com/mwmitchell/rsolr/tree/master
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Matt
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/solr-ruby---let%27s-get-a-1.0%21-tp22501321p22919097.html
> Sent from the Lucene - Ruby Developer mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message