On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Chris Hostetter <hossman_luc...@fucit.org> wrote: > > : On IRC, yonik suggested that the explain format should mimic follow what > : the debugQuery parameter would use. > : > : I'm don't really agree -- long term I would even suggest dropping the > : explain section from debug and letting you specify it as an inline > : parameter. > > those seem like orthoginal issues: > > 1) (ryan) deprecate/remove the explain section from debug and > tell people to use the "_explain_" psuedo field instead > > 2) (ryan) add options to the _explain_ psuedofield to let you pick > an explanation style inline (ie: _explain:nl_) > > 3) (yonik) make the _explain_ psuedofield respect the > debug.explain.structured param (or something like it) > > #1 & #2 don't preclude #3 ... if i always want to get the "nl" mode > explanations, it would be nice to be able to hardcode something a param > the defaults section for my handler so that adding the _explain_ > psuedofield just made it happen.
I think we both agreed that _explain_ was a good thing. The issue was more about this: if explain has different formatting, how should it be controlled? I pointed out there was already a parameter to control this. Ryan had some alternate syntax proposals to allow passing parameters to transformers (and I was on the fence due to syntax proliferation - we already have localParams). And I'm still on the fence - _explain_ alone does not justify a whole new syntax IMO... so we may need more usecase examples to figure out what problem we're actually trying to solve. -Yonik http://www.lucenerevolution.org -- Lucene/Solr User Conference, May 25-26, San Francisco --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
