lucy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Karman <pe...@peknet.com>
Subject Re: [lucy-dev] Simplifying the Query Parser
Date Sat, 16 Apr 2011 18:09:06 GMT
David E. Wheeler wrote on 4/16/11 11:05 AM:
> On Apr 15, 2011, at 8:27 PM, Peter Karman wrote:
> 
>> This, I'm not so sure about. At least, it should be configurable, with a 
>> 'strict' flag or similar, which if enabled, would throw errors if 'foo' was
>> not a defined field. Otherwise, depending on the user, we're in the realm
>> of silent failure rather than gracious host.
> 
> That just trades one level of complexity (heed_colons) for another (strict).

/me nods

> 
>> Do we even have a feature for public/private fields atm?
> 
> Yes, Marvin says it will search only those you list in the constructor,
> unless you have heed_colons on and someone specifies a field not listed.
> 

ah. thanks for clarifying.


>> I think the focus on reliable, flexible *Query classes has been a good
>> design choice to date, because it means that it is quite straightforward to
>> roll your own query parser (as I have done), entirely suited to your
>> application's needs, sidestepping the Lucy QueryParser altogether. That's
>> good library design, imo.
> 
> So maybe there isn't a need for a strict parser?

agreed.

> 
>> I agree that Lucy QueryParser should get simpler over time, by losing
>> features, but not convinced that the behavior you're proposing actually
>> does that. I'm happy to be convinced though.
> 
> Given the audience it currently targets (web search box users), I think it
> makes sense to try to adhere to the principal of least astonishment.
> 

that was convincing. :)

+1

-- 
Peter Karman  .  http://peknet.com/  .  peter@peknet.com

Mime
View raw message