On 05/12/12 13:43, Andrej Golcov wrote:
Hi,
It does worry me that it might not be the best idea to support lucene as
well as existing syntax but if there are existing parsers for the lucene
style syntax it may be OK. Perhaps there is a way of using Whoosh to
provide parsing services for us.
Do you mean to use Whoosh query parser to parse Bloodhound Search query?
That will bring us a lot functionality with much less effort and bugs.
From the first look, Whoosh query syntax
(http://packages.python.org/Whoosh/querylang.html) covers at least 90%
of our requirements. According to Whoosh code, it can be also
extended: http://packages.python.org/Whoosh/parsing.html. In case of
PyLucene usage, we will provide query mapping from Whoosh to Lucen.
There are few drawbacks that I can see:
- we have to follow Whoosh syntax and not imagine ourselves, at least
in basics - may be it is not a drawback :)
Given the qparser plugin system that you have already hinted at, it
should not be so bad if we want to add syntax.
- Bloodhound Search plugin will depend on Whoosh even if other search
backend is used e.g. PyLucene
If we can leave with this, I vote for starting prototype with Whoosh
syntax and parser since it will speedup features delivery. Anyway, we
can implement our own parser later.
Regards, Andrej
Yes, I entirely agree with that approach. I would be very happy to see
some early search improvements!
Cheers,
Gary
