Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-dev-archive@locus.apache.org Received: (qmail 69407 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2007 22:44:26 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Feb 2007 22:44:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 51022 invoked by uid 500); 1 Feb 2007 22:44:32 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 51000 invoked by uid 500); 1 Feb 2007 22:44:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact solr-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: solr-dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list solr-dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 50991 invoked by uid 99); 1 Feb 2007 22:44:32 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 Feb 2007 14:44:32 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [140.211.11.4] (HELO brutus.apache.org) (140.211.11.4) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 Feb 2007 14:44:26 -0800 Received: from brutus (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by brutus.apache.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A9237142B6 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2007 14:44:05 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <10793824.1170369845538.JavaMail.jira@brutus> Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 14:44:05 -0800 (PST) From: "J.J. Larrea (JIRA)" To: solr-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: [jira] Commented: (SOLR-133) change XmlUpdateRequestHandler to use StAX instead of XPP In-Reply-To: <9402385.1170360305557.JavaMail.jira@brutus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-133?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12469603 ] J.J. Larrea commented on SOLR-133: ---------------------------------- It would be useful if there first were some consensus as to what the goals are for making a change to the XML Update Handler; some possibilities I can think of include: 1) To use standards-based rather than non-standards-based technologies as much as possible 2) To use as few different XML technologies (and coding styles related to the technology) as possible 3) To reduce as much as possible the complexity of code needed for interpreting XML command and/or configuration streams 4) To lower resource consumption and limitations for XML handling, e.g. stream-based rather than random-access By all means add to that list, prioritize, and remove goals which are not seen as important. Then it seems to me the question would be how many of those goals are addressed by changing XML Update Handler to stAX, vs. other technologies. One might at the same time also want to look at other places where SOLR decodes XML such as config files, to see if there can be more commonality rather than continued isolation. > change XmlUpdateRequestHandler to use StAX instead of XPP > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: SOLR-133 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-133 > Project: Solr > Issue Type: Improvement > Reporter: Hoss Man > > there has been discussion of using StAX for XML parsing of updates instead of XPP ... opening an issue to track it as a possible improvement (orriginally mentioned in SOLR-61, but that task was more specificly about refactoring the existing code) -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.