From solr-user-return-145240-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@lucene.apache.org Mon Dec 3 13:26:15 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id AD5B1180645 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 13:26:14 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 93621 invoked by uid 500); 3 Dec 2018 12:26:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact solr-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list solr-user@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 93604 invoked by uid 99); 3 Dec 2018 12:26:12 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 03 Dec 2018 12:26:12 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id A4B2AC5C99 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 12:26:11 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.222 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.222 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd1-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd1-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LirMBOX8cK7T for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 12:26:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yw1-f54.google.com (mail-yw1-f54.google.com [209.85.161.54]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 806E75FBB7 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 12:26:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw1-f54.google.com with SMTP id h193so5286232ywc.4 for ; Mon, 03 Dec 2018 04:26:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=J/hZb1ASShGU3dPzVJIqpIoQ0W0WyKL6B4YJ93hkqm0=; b=G0iACyt+GCgntVFrTz6H+whbmvrejiibAuhtf0HDPQO2ZekUrZguYZXLP5md5c5/OL p1uQtWzZJlOozQtjekiQnLTUoktgPUwj4P/iV91amLbenXnJfSYlVfSh6Vf2dH23vKkU wy18Ul1a2AYFWvyqzIl6hwpLrd4QWc9UAr3JBlbMpaPDGCIL3OOkrNqNiLV4tjSqyhkV LJbZZ0A4w2u22zbOwJGQOQlIYLsD/eyWE0yhFqPNqqfJSIB2mjpWONToDU7NXVX4ofWQ mugOgLoXNtNyIqLqQ9zs9f/Ugxi1QoWQf3mKrkGJrW31ilx0EX79L53Z6nvcqjIwGSRe rOrQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=J/hZb1ASShGU3dPzVJIqpIoQ0W0WyKL6B4YJ93hkqm0=; b=UBm/vBhCEHDQYH46B98dGdIaGC/EUKE9zLozI1aRr+868oicTfq8neUBS4bNQvvf+a aqYvCJ3GK3YCGzzV+2veMrWdaq9+HWA9OrYaRza38r8U3GEvn5hneJSSN3vxWOsSq04H SOd4AONE9IG6mNPpkdkYLKzOj59B4yuwK6byA+hgsOOsPylI98EGSO2txcHnsuBeL67m 7USNBFTq0bymCvYMVnMCcJytclGq/JjkeT2KItbcffAEppWiOedWm9tZd8OlYem0xinF x9dyJpQgHG5lbkjF8/sJQA/8QNXh/WcwqEohj9w/dD2ycMj5fuWetoq4Ip9qRnU3W6J9 2U0Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWbDsgIuU0NBzq03UcgpzjBx1GjxWPir/aoosBjCO9I+nXpkevPX xPJSkAczpfxAFKw+OWFAt5rFL2SXz5/4MgzMJDs88A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/X4kRxqjSXdgOi6sw4SkaDGobmvIiNadcArd/FLDqiVn7pBqU+XobLbCx6wdrNP6Iv/sHSPbff7PnesnhkVtgs= X-Received: by 2002:a81:5113:: with SMTP id f19mr15619612ywb.122.1543839963498; Mon, 03 Dec 2018 04:26:03 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Alexandre Rafalovitch Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 07:25:25 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Solr Request Handler To: solr-user Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" You should not be exposing Solr directly to the client, but treating it more as a database. Given that, why would you not write your processing code in that middle-ware layer? Regards, Alex. On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 at 06:43, Lucky Sharma wrote: > > Hi have one scenario, > where I need to make a sequential call to the solr. Both the requests > are sequential and output of the first will be required to set some > params of the second search request. > > So for such scenarios, I am writing a plugin which will internally > handle both the requests and gives the final response as output. > > Is this the correct approach? > The only assumption I am making here is that both the cores are > locally available. > > -- > Warm Regards, > > Lucky Sharma > Contact No: +91 9821559918