> Subject: Re: [SolrJ Clients] RequestWriter VS BinaryRequestWriter
> To: [email protected]
> From: [email protected]
> Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 08:41:16 -0700
> 
> On 11/5/2015 4:30 AM, Alessandro Benedetti wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> > I was taking a look to the implementation details to understand how
> > Solr requests are written by SolrJ APIs.
> > The interesting classes are :
> >
> > /org.apache.solr.client.solrj.request.RequestWriter/
> >
> > /org.apache.solr.client.solrj.impl.BinaryRequestWriter/( wrong package ? )
> 
> Even though RequestWriter is not written as an actual interface, and is
> itself an implementation, you can think of it as an interface. 
> BinaryRequestWriter is a very specific implementation, which is why it
> is in a package that includes "impl."
> 
> RequestWriter should probably be an interface or an abstract class (like
> SolrClient), with an XML and a binary implementation.
> 
> I believe that there is one primary reason that HttpSolrClient is still
> using the XML request writer and that RequestWriter is still an actual
> implementation rather than abstract class or an interface:  Inertia. 
> The HTTP client has been available for users for a very long time.  Even
> though the chances of causing a problem with existing user programs by
> switching the default writer is very small, it's much safer and easier
> to leave it at XML.

Martini> the conflict is over the /update endpoint which for 3.x and lower 
versions is always XML
Martini> so if you have one active 3.x server you have no choice but to retain 
XML RequestWriterMartini> good point shawn
> 
> We had an opportunity with the 5.0 release to make some of these
> changes, but a new major release has so much activity that it is easy to
> lose track of desired fixes, especially when the existing version works
> perfectly.  The Cloud client is using binary because it is a newer
> implementation and did not have years of history with XML to worry about.
> 
> I think that these changes should be made in trunk, so they will be
> there in 6.0 when that version is released. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Shawn
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> 
                                          

Reply via email to