Hi, However I'm not a "UI expert" but I worked on various webapps (Webshops, Banking clients etc.) And I worked with several js libs (jquery, early angular, extjs, React, Vue, etc). >From my experience: - From technical perspective there will be no "better" choice, all frameworks has pros and cons and all of them can do the job. - I think today if you want to choose between UI techs the aspect which weight the most is "Which technology is that our team has the most experience" Or if we have novice UI members which tech has the most fitting learning curve. (*Personal* opinion: I think Vue would be the better choice. )
I'm not a committer here, but I'd be glad to part of UI rewriting. And I'm also supporting to have the ui code separate from the backend code. At least outside of core. Best regards, Geza Noble Paul <noble.p...@gmail.com> ezt írta (időpont: 2020. ápr. 9., Cs, 10:56): > The advantage of hosting this outside are > > * You can have ui experts as committers instead of back end devs like us > * You can iterate fast > * Users can update to the new version of UI without reinstalling Solr or > even restarting their nodes > * People can even downgrade to an older version if their current version > is buggy > * You can even add advanced features to it w/o going through > the bureaucracy of Solr > > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020, 6:40 PM Noble Paul <noble.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> @Marcus Eagan >> >> Is the current UI bad? totally yes. >> Is a better UI welcome ? 100% >> Is your proposal better ? 100% >> >> My only concern is adding a huge amount of code into our already >> bloated codebase >> >> We have multiple options that can work >> >> a) We already add so many jars in our distro. Can this be added as a >> dependency? totally? >> b) Make it a package where , I can use a command to install it. >> >> To make this work, you can start it as a github project and add us as >> collaborators (if needed). You may also add UI experts to that project >> to get it built faster. >> you can iterate faster too. >> >> think of us doing a simple command such as >> >> bin/solr package deploy awesome-solr-gui:0.1.1 >> >> I think there are some missing pieces in the package system to make >> this work. But we can plug those holes once we identify them >> >> >> >> I'm OK with any of these solution it it helps us get rid of the bad UI >> that we have today. I can pitch in and help you in any which way you >> want >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 5:30 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya >> <ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > I think a UI should be a package, and I'm willing to help make it >> possible such that package manager is capable of doing so. Also, I see no >> reason why this UI needs to be in Solr codebase. >> > >> > I totally agree that Solr users need a better UI. But, I'm -1 to adding >> that in Solr core codebase. >> > >> > I'm willing to consider having this UI as a first party package, >> separate from Solr distribution. >> > >> > By the way, the UI looks great! I fully appreciate your efforts. I >> think this UI will be much better placed in your GitHub account under your >> stewardship and Solr documents/guides could add a hint on how to let Solr >> start with your UI. >> > >> > >> > On Thu, 9 Apr, 2020, 12:38 pm Marcus Eagan, <marcusea...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hey Noble, >> >> >> >> -1 is a definitive, so I want to clarify that you are saying you do >> not wish to remove the EOL front end and replace it with another one in the >> longer term? >> >> >> >> I hear you! As a product manager in my day job, my primary goal is to >> find features to cut! I spend a lot of time thinking about non-essential vs >> used heavily vs causes more problems than it's worth. I can tell you from >> watching the many people in the field at Lucidworks, there are a lot of >> people who know quite a bit about Solr, but rely on the Admin UI heavily >> because they feel comfortable there. Those people in effect help us stay >> employed despite never contributing or being capable of contributing to >> Solr. So hear me out. I've got a proposal: >> >> >> >> To start, I can work on this app as an optional package for your >> awesome new package manager. It will be the second one I've worked on in my >> evenings and weekends btw. The first was a package validator that I hope to >> eventually open source, but its complexity and lack of popularity because >> it is security ;( will likely make it the second one I open source/finish. >> I'm also collaborating with a couple members of the Lucidworks security >> team on that one, but I have built the basics already for them to build >> upon. >> >> >> >> Back to the new UI discussion and my update that I promised. >> >> >> >> My update was going to be that after evaluating the projects Jan >> posted, the most recent project that Jan listed created a pretty good base >> to build on. After lots of auditing of the packages and a bit of >> refactoring because the UI world moves fast, I was able to get it to >> transpile and run again (as I'm sure it previously did) and from (2290 >> vulns): >> >> >> >> no npm fix doesn't magically fix, I wish it did >> >> >> >> to (2 low sev, non-productions vulns): >> >> >> >> >> >> These two issues will not affect production and really only the unit >> tests. Besides, I plan to remove them before we get to a stage even that >> matters. I've also started investigating the level of effort for me to get >> it to feature parity with the current app. The preliminary answer is not >> very much compared to other work I've done in shorter time — working with a >> jerk for a boss (years ago, don't worry Hatcher). I'm building a couple of >> the missing features as we speak. From the beginning, it will have >> infinitely more test coverage and will be a lot more approachable to >> contemporary UI developers. It will also make the Solr experience for new >> developers simpler. The major design changes that I have been thinking >> about would be to the cloud view and the query view. Both of those are >> important, the first to more experienced users, and the second to less >> advanced users though occasionally an advanced debugger or demo presenter >> in my experience. >> >> >> >> In the end Noble, this is about making Solr more approachable to new >> users not experts like you. The growth of Solr adoption only benefits you, >> so I would ask you to revisit your -1 at some point in the near future when >> you see the progress and breadth of improvement. We have had customers >> complain about the Admin UI and the community has even complained about it. >> I think this is the right thing to do. If you still consider effectively >> upgrading the current Admin UI as feature creep, I can revisit the package >> manager compromise or move the efforts elsewhere. I respect your position. >> A search service is nothing without a strong and diverse set of skills and >> capabilities behind it and making it accessible to everyone who needs it. >> >> >> >> For those who care, here's my 4 Node cluster of tech products running >> locally. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The shoulders of the homie that put that scaffold together are broad! >> Props to him. I will volunteer to put together extensive docs for JS devs >> who want to contribute and make it better once we get it to a place where >> it replaces and improves upon the current option. I'll even sponsor some >> prizes for college kids or people recently out of work to get cranking on >> this bad boy. >> >> >> >> Thank you Noble and everyone else, >> >> >> >> Marcus >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 11:20 PM Noble Paul <noble.p...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Solr developers are not UI experts. We are a search service and such >> a service should have nice clean APIs + documentation. Is a UI useful ? >> yes. The last thing we want today is another complex component in Solr >> codebase that nobody understands or cannot maintain. >> >>> >> >>> So, Solr UI can be hosted outside our codebase and we can have an >> option to install UI from that remote repo >> >>> >> >>> something like "bin/solr install-gui" >> >>> >> >>> I'm -1 on anymore feature creep. >> >>> >> >>> --Noble >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 12:22 PM Marcus Eagan <marcusea...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Thanks again Gus. >> >>>> >> >>>> Lots of people indeed misuse REST so we could go on and on about >> whether requests are stateless or not in another thread. Let's spare the >> group. >> >>>> >> >>>> I think most everyone on this channel would be in agreement with you >> on separate app. I'll be opening a new ticket and a PR that will document a >> few things to make it easy for UI devs who know little to no Java how to >> get started. >> >>>> >> >>>> Ishan, there's some significant UI expertise in the team. Erickson >> finds his way to open every cookie jar. Erik Hatcher wrote the first >> version of Blacklight. I've seen Pugh do lots of work on Quepid's UI. Jan >> and Kevin have done a lot of work, and so have many others. The list goes >> on, and *likes to work on UI* is a different discussion. >> >>>> >> >>>> Beyond committers because I'm not a committer, I have UI expertise >> that I can polish off and improve for the sake of my interest and >> commitment to the community and I like to do it. I've also led UI teams. I >> can help to steward the effort overall and keep things up to date up to the >> point where I need to ask one of the committers to help me get changes >> merged. I'll probably even hire a developer to work on it once we are to >> that point. ;-) >> >>>> >> >>>> Expertise is not something that should block us but motivate us to >> expand this community and/or our own skillsets long term. >> >>>> >> >>>> Thank you both and everyone else, >> >>>> >> >>>> Marcus >> >>>> >> >>>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020, 10:21 AM Gus Heck <gus.h...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> While running it in an external node does ensure separability, I >> don't think it does a good job of addressing my other point of not needing >> to manage a 3rd server. It's still a server if it's started by java, and >> one still has to ensure it exists, and it will be extra hard to figure out >> how to configure it if started by Solr. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I'm strongly in favor of us having a UI from my perspective as a >> consultant it makes discovery of things like their startup parameters and >> directories and such very easy (just go to front page of the admin screen), >> and it's so much easier to get a customer with security concerns and strict >> controls on who can access what (think banks, military, etc) to share a web >> session where they drive the UI than to get direct access to machines. >> It'll be a lot slower and much lower service to be making people wait while >> I craft curl statements to paste into the web session (and then fix the >> inevitable typos, or detect when they missed the last char of what I >> pasted, etc...). >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I definitely against Solr spawning some other server (node or >> otherwise) on it's own and thereby requiring additional system >> dependencies, or creating a second process that needs to be configured and >> properly secured. To me that's even worse than requiring the UI to run >> outside of Solr. We have a perfectly good web container already, and >> furthermore there's a much greater likelihood that maintainers will be >> facile with java/j2ee than anything else (IMHO). It's great if the >> framework we choose uses little or no JSP/Servlet and is modernized with a >> 100% javascript, templated etc. front end, but the back end should be >> java/jetty because we've got lots of java folks. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> If the back end matters deeply then you're not really programming >> to MVC/REST style... >> >>>>> >> >>>>> So there's another $0.02 :) and if you're not careful I'll give you >> an entire nickle's worth of ways people misuse/misunderstand the term REST >> :) >> >>>>> >> >>>>> -Gus >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 9:06 PM Marcus Eagan <marcusea...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Gus, >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Your $.02 are worth a lot more than $.02 USD, so thank you. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> By separate app, I think I mean to endorse managed by a Node.js >> process started by NPM. I don’t think that conflicts with what you have >> proposed. The NPM command should be issued by Java || or Bash but I don’t >> think it would add significant overhead. Also, seems like on CI and or >> precommit hooks front end could be sizzled in parallel without adding much >> overhead. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> As for the front end framework, the most important things to >> consider in my view are simplicity and maintainability. We need to do a >> thorough analysis on the ecosystem and issues like the size of a React >> project vs Angular project vs Vue project, but React and Vue certainly have >> the velocity and the hearts if the front end community more than Angular. >> React is MIT license now and for the foreseeable >> >>>>>> future thanks to the power and reach of its developers. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> <gus.h...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> +1 for Angular CLI / Typescript since I've fiddled with this in a >> minor way recently, Also MIT license is super friendly. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> As a disenfranchised volunteer to the project, I also assume >> voters on specific choices like frameworks will be helping build in some >> respect at some point now or in the future. Is that a fair or misguided >> assumption? >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Marcus >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 17:15 Gus Heck <gus.h...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> +1 for Angular CLI / Typescript since I've fiddled with this in a >> minor way recently, Also MIT license is super friendly. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Separate App - hmm... that's got some attraction, but also gives >> my stomach some churning when I think about solr now requiring management >> of 3 different servers (solr, something to serve UI and zookeeper). Adding >> more infrastructure gives me pause with respect to all the smaller >> installations. I've had several small self funded startup clients and a few >> clients with existing initial installs that they are outgrowing in places >> where procuring new machines and new software is a 6-12 mo endeavor and >> both types seem to squirm when I make suggestions such as running zookeeper >> separately, (let alone 3 of them). I think separate looks good for medium >> to large folks or very large companies that **already have** a solr expert >> on hand, but hurts the small clients and the departments in large orgs that >> got started with insufficient advice/expertise, so maybe >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> - The UI should be installed by default >> >>>>>>> - it should be easy to remove it, or start with it disabled >> >>>>>>> - it should be self contained and separately downloadable. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> My recent fiddling included figuring out how to make angular CLI >> play nice in a J2ee war file structure seen here: >> https://github.com/nsoft/ns-login >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> By play nice I mean, >> >>>>>>> - build creates a war file that "just works" when installed >> >>>>>>> - Angluar CLI commands work >> >>>>>>> - Angular serve command works (for auto-reloading ui changes, >> running on port 4200; note the use of proxy to allow it to talk to an >> already running web container) >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> My $0.02, >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> -Gus >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 11:03 AM Jörn Franke <jornfra...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> I think standalone would be very useful. >> >>>>>>>> I propose Angular with Typescript - it fits to a more data >> centric approach with data types etc. >> >>>>>>>> Maybe even two types of UIs - Admin UI and a simple Search UI. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Am 06.04.2020 um 16:53 schrieb Jan Høydahl < >> jan....@cominvent.com>: >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Thanks for kickstarting this and bringing some fresh blood and >> enthusiasm :) >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Looks like others have had similar wish for a standalone Solr >> Admin App, here’s a quick GitHub search for inspiration: >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> https://github.com/savantly-net/solr-admin (Angular, nice >> screenshots, 1y old) >> >>>>>>>> https://github.com/kezhenxu94/yasa (vuejs, impressive >> screenshots, 2y old) >> >>>>>>>> https://github.com/thereactleague/galaxy (React, no >> screenshots, 4y old) >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> They all seem abandoned but perhaps a new official effort could >> bring their developers in as contributors again? >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> the people who work on the Admin UI do not need to be expected >> to know the Java workflow, necessarily. This reality widens the net for who >> can contribute. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Agree. Frontend devs have been a shortage in this project, and >> if we can make it easier to attract UI committers who feel at home and >> productive with the UI code, that would be a win. On the other hand, if we >> expect that the UI will be maintained by regular Java committers, then >> anything that makes it easier for them/us to contribute is also a win, like >> perhaps strongly-typed. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Again, thanks Marcus for reviving this topic. Let us all try not >> to be overly ambitious here or shoot the initiative down with bikeshedding. >> It is far more important to fuel the energy and momentum and get something >> built than to remain stuck :) >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Jan >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> 6. apr. 2020 kl. 13:47 skrev Marcus Eagan <m...@marcuseagan.com>: >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Coming back to these existential questions from my phone: >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Jan Høydahl >> >>>>>>>> Added 1 hour ago >> >>>>>>>> There are many opinions around admin UI. So I think the best >> place to start would be a new mail-thread in dev@ to discuss the way >> forward. Before we start a major re-work, we should probably ask ourselves >> a few existential questions: >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Should we turn Amin UI into a standalone app instead of embedded >> in Solr? >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> I think it should be a standalone app. There are many advantages >> gained from a separation of such concerns. Some of the ones include, the >> people who work on the Admin UI do not need to be expected to know the Java >> workflow, necessarily. This reality widens the net for who can contribute. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Testing becomes a lot easier because JS developers are >> accustomed to building tests for static assets and self-contained node >> apps. They generally know less about testing a bit of JS within a massive >> Java project. The test could also run independently for changes that only >> affect the front end. Adding test coverage without adding time to tests >> sounds awesome. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> There are quite a few tickets over the years that have seemed to >> suggest that people want more fine-grained control over the Solr admin UI >> overall. Two recent tickets discussed topics like running a Solr Admin app >> on only one node and disabling it al together for whatever reason. See: >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-14014. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> What UI framework? Guess anything is better than current EOL, >> but will largely depend on who is willing to do the job! >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> I’m happy to take this on (and willing to follow through on >> completing in my nights and weekends), but I am mostly framework agnostic. >> My stronge preference would be React, provided the license is kosher. There >> was one blip of “practically unusable for most orgs” a couple years back, >> but Facebook made it right really soon after. However, I’m flexible. >> Angular (not JS) and Vue are also great. I would recommend we consider >> Typescript also because of the size of project and number of strongly-typed >> devs on this mailing list. My only reservation with TypeScript, though it >> may not apply in this case, is that the supersets of JS have changed a lot >> more than the frameworks. While CoffeeScript was an unnecessary layer of >> abstraction from my limited perspective, TypeScript might make JS more >> embraceable to a list of Java hackers. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Current UI has no test coverage, can we do better with the new >> UI? >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> It’s imperative.React, Angular, and Vue each make it easy to >> include tests. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-12276?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17076204#comment-17076204 >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>> http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) >> >>>>>>> http://www.the111shift.com (play) >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> -- >> >>>>>> Marcus Eagan >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> -- >> >>>>> http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) >> >>>>> http://www.the111shift.com (play) >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> ----------------------------------------------------- >> >>> Noble Paul >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Marcus Eagan >> >> >> >> >> -- >> ----------------------------------------------------- >> Noble Paul >> >
