lucene-solr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Yonik Seeley <>
Subject Re: Namespaces in response (SOLR-1586)
Date Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:31:23 GMT
Should have tried this before... I just created a small XML file:


I pointed both firefox and IE at this file and it displays as XML fine.
I then changed the file to this:


That made both of them barf.
That alone makes me lean pretty strongly against using a namespace for this.


On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Yonik Seeley
<> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> <> wrote:
>> How does it introduce any new requirements? Namespaces are easily ignored by
>> any XML client as they are if they weren't present. In other words, unless
>> the XML client has setValidating=true, then this isn't an issue.
> I've run across cases where I added a schema declaration to an XML
> file and then things started failing.  I think some parsers may
> default to validating if it sees that it can?
> Namespaces are to avoid name clashes.  Solr XML is well defined and
> not arbitrary... adding <point> if we wish to do so won't introduce
> any clashes.
>> The only difference between what you call simple above and what I've
>> proposed (and correct me if I'm wrong but others have too) is that your
>> <point tag would include a namespace prefix and an xmlns attribute. What's
>> the difference?
>>> It is worth using standards when they buy you enough.... I'm not sure
>>> this is one of those times.
>>> I'm sure there are standards for numeric types like <int> too... but
>>> using namespaces for that seems like overkill.
>> There's a difference between a primitive type like int, and one like point.
>> Also, it all comes down to your use case. If the only thing you're ever
>> going to do with SOLR is have a SOLR client talk to it (Java, Ruby, whatever
>> PL you want) then namespaces/etc. might be overkill. But why open up the
>> response format then and advertise SOLR as something that provides REST-ful
>> services for search?
> REST-ful doesn't say anything about customizing the response format.
>> If that's the case, then users consuming those
>> responses need the flexibility to customize them for their use case
>> (validation, plugging into external GIS tools, etc.). So, I don't agree with
>> this.
> What GIS tool could deal with a Solr XML response format w/o any other
> knowledge of everything else in the response?
> Are there some real use cases that using a namespace vs not for point
> make easier (an honest question... I don't know much about GIS stuff).
>> All I've done is use what already exists. There doesn't need to be any
>> patches. XmlWriter#writePrim allowed you to do this before, see:
> Yeah, you can use that to output <long>false</long> too... but it will
> cause certain clients to barf.
> -Yonik

View raw message