Maybe start collecting Design and Design choices in a SIP? This discussion has been good and there seems to be consensus that we want a new UI, we want it to be a package and we want the package to be available by default and well tested. "Package" seems to imply that it can be added or removed or replaced or an alternative UI installed along side of it. If we got all of those things done this would be amazingly awesome :)
Another thing that would be valuable is a good doc that explains "how to edit and maintain the UI", written for an audience that is experienced in SW dev but not UI development (probably including some basics around framework chosen). This could be in a README or in the "dev docs" that has been mentioned elsewhere. The SIP would be a great place to elaborate on technology choices & supply a link to things like the video :) On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 10:35 AM Mike Drob <md...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Marcus, > > The mailing list strips attachments for some folks, can you upload the > video somewhere else and link to it for us poor unfortunate souls? Thanks > for your work! Excited to see the progress as it happens. > > Mike > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 5:30 AM Marcus Eagan <marcusea...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> In general, I asked for some degree of trouble when I volunteered for >> this work. Don't beat me too hard. My primary goal is to achieve three >> things: >> >> 1) Improve security when using Solr Admin UI by removing EOL, unsupported >> code. >> 2) Make it easier or more welcoming for new developers to try the project >> and even become contributors in all areas of the project because the UI >> looks and functions as slightly more contemporary. >> 3) Give back more substantially to a community from which I have received >> so much with a testable and perrty UI. >> >> I've added another (4) which is contribute to help make the package >> manager a first-class citizen in the minds of many Solr users around the >> world via the UI package. I will need some help from someone in this list >> on deploying this UI with a jar in Gradle if we want to offer an >> alternative option to install the UI in Solr 9. I've attached where I'm at. >> It's a nights and weekends project, but I will always be available for >> bug fixes or discussions, unless i'm in a meeting or reading a book đ >> >> I won't solicit a ton of feedback prior to the the first PR, which I will >> leave open for a few weeks or even a couple months while I put some >> lipstick on it and improve performance of the application >> >> *<<<<<<< Over the weekend read lots of documentation, wrote a bunch of >> code when it wasn't holidays, built the services, and stumbled through the >> logic of rendering all these data points so you can watch the attached >> video if you want to check it out. >>>>>>>>* >> >> . There's definitely some areas where I didn't do the TypeScript thing >> because I'm still trying to grok it a bit.The two areas of the that I am >> looking to somewhat overhaul in potentially controversial ways are the >> *queries >> page* and actual flow of the collections experience, which at the moment >> are sort of linked, yet disconnected at the same time. The Collections page >> tab today is really an Alias page. It won't have its own tab in the new >> application is the plan, unless someone can give me a good reason. Almost >> everything else will stay the same. >> >> For that reason, I'd like to solicit feedback if anyone has any examples >> or ideas they'd like to share, I would greatly appreciate it. I'm somewhat >> far along with the Admin UI as of now. Short weekend because of holiday >> activities and general quarantine craziness, but I'm maybe 25-35% of the >> way to completion, depending on how much care I devote to the query >> screen. >> >> Even though there are some big problems with Angular â some major ones â >> I think this was the right way to go for many reasons. I'm about a quarter >> as fast in Angular as I am in React, but this is the right decision for the >> long haul. I can elaborate if anyone really cares. Most importantly, this >> app will be a lot easier to maintain. >> >> But now I have a handle on TypeScript. Many optimizations and >> improvements coming to Solr as a result. TypeScript can be pretty >> opinionated about APIs for someone thinking that they are back in the wild >> wild west. >> >> Sending big air hugs, >> Marcus >> >> On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 16:20 Noble Paul <noble.p...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> +1 to David Smiley >>> >>> On Sat, Apr 11, 2020, 8:12 AM Marcus Eagan <marcusea...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I don't see admin UI as non-core. I think that an application UI for >>>> end-users of an application consumes Solr non-core. I have to resign from >>>> arguing, though. >>>> >>>> I don't consider myself a UI expert. I can do the work. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 11:42 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < >>>> ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> David, you capture my thoughts well. >>>>> >>>>> Having a UI as a package gives users more choice and gives our users >>>>> more flexibility. >>>>> 1. Users would be able to use a latter version of the UI with an older >>>>> version of Solr, or vice versa. >>>>> 2. Users should be able to install multiple types of UI, from >>>>> different publishers, at once. >>>>> 3. Contributors should be able to contribute to the UI more easily, >>>>> since collaboration can be less bureaucratic. Experts like Marcus won't >>>>> need to depend on preoccupied committers like us. >>>>> 4. A UI (not the default one) can use libraries that aren't even >>>>> Apache 2.0 compatible. >>>>> 5. We can setup and use UI test frameworks for test automation >>>>> (selenium etc), that would be challenging to setup and maintain with ASF >>>>> Jenkins. >>>>> >>>>> List goes on.. >>>>> >>>>> Whether the package is a first party or third party can be a separate >>>>> discussion. There should be an extremely easy and well defined way >>>>> (support >>>>> in the script itself) to start Solr with the packaged UI enabled. >>>>> >>>>> In any case, I don't think it is conducive to let UI code be part of >>>>> the Solr's core codebase, where it currently is. The reason is, we can't >>>>> fix bugs if we break something. We don't have automated testing either to >>>>> know whether or not we broke anything. >>>>> >>>>> Every healthy project has a rich plugin ecosystem, and such non core >>>>> improvements should be delivered via packages. >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, 10 Apr, 2020, 8:33 pm Marcus Eagan, <marcusea...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I agree with you. đ >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 06:22 David Smiley <david.w.smi...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I disagree that "package management frameworks are for loading >>>>>>> non-essential features or features not enabled by default". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't think the proposal of the UI being a "package" (in the new >>>>>>> package system) implies that the UI (or _any_ package) is not a >>>>>>> highly valuable package that is so highly valuable that we want it >>>>>>> installed by default. Noble and I were brainstorming on some ideas >>>>>>> where >>>>>>> even much of Solr's internal instances of plugin interfaces (e.g. query >>>>>>> parsers, etc.) might even be a new "core" package or some-such. The >>>>>>> value >>>>>>> in putting much of Solr in a package, 1st party, is separation of >>>>>>> concerns. >>>>>>> and better classpath management. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think it's "essential" that a UI ship with Solr by default -- >>>>>>> meaning, without the user having to take any additional steps >>>>>>> whatsoever. >>>>>>> As Jan said it's been this way a long time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ~ David Smiley >>>>>>> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer >>>>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 1:35 AM Marcus Eagan <marcusea...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think package management frameworks are for loading non-essential >>>>>>>> features or features not enabled by default. On essentialness, experts >>>>>>>> should not decide what is essential based on how they use a system. >>>>>>>> They >>>>>>>> should consider the community of users. Regarding UI, it is and should >>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>> enabled by default. Only a few use cases prefer it to be disabled and >>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>> of those are because of its current state. They would like to use it >>>>>>>> in an >>>>>>>> updated form. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What is the technical rationale that outweighs the needs and >>>>>>>> behaviors of our users to strip the user interface out of Solr? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you Noble and everyone else, >>>>>>>> Marcus >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 19:06 Noble Paul <noble.p...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> My 2 cents (again) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> if packages are disabled by default , how will UI work? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We can make an exception for this one and enable only this by >>>>>>>>> default >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do we test the UI and certify it? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The UI package can be shipped along with Solr distro ,like the >>>>>>>>> million >>>>>>>>> other jars that we ship with Solr today and every version of Solr >>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>> be certified for a certain version of the UI package. We should >>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>> sanity tests to ensure that the given version of UI works well with >>>>>>>>> Solr. "My commit has broken the UI and it's not my problem" should >>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>> be a valid excuse. The UI sanity tests should pass as a part of the >>>>>>>>> tests. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is the UI important? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, the admin UI is the face of Solr for may users. People always >>>>>>>>> assumed it existed & they depend on it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The current admin UI has fallen behind. If the new UI effort >>>>>>>>> delivers >>>>>>>>> on the promise, this is a great opportunity to get rid of that old >>>>>>>>> baggage & make Solr codebase even slimmer >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 6:06 AM Jan Høydahl <jan....@cominvent.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > Solr has always had an admin UI and if anyone wants to propose >>>>>>>>> it should not, please start another thread or vote about that, and do >>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>> divert this thread which is about how to improve and future proof the >>>>>>>>> Admin >>>>>>>>> UI. >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > I believe the Admin UI should be strengthened and enhanced, not >>>>>>>>> removed. It can perfectly well be an official and even default on >>>>>>>>> part of >>>>>>>>> every release, perfectly in sync. Whether it is in core as today or a >>>>>>>>> package or a stand-alone process or a new webapp, are then really >>>>>>>>> what we >>>>>>>>> discuss here. >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > Perhaps after people have voiced their opinions in this thread, >>>>>>>>> a SIP can be crafted with a concrete plan. We can then have a vote on >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> SIP. >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > Jan Høydahl >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > > 9. apr. 2020 kl. 20:06 skrev Cassandra Targett < >>>>>>>>> casstarg...@gmail.com>: >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > ďťż >>>>>>>>> > > Thanks for your message, Gus. You touched on things I was >>>>>>>>> thinking this morning as I caught up to the thread, and had started to >>>>>>>>> draft a message about. >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > I feel like there is an assumption underlying some of our >>>>>>>>> discussion about packages that says a feature or whatever has to >>>>>>>>> either >>>>>>>>> part of our core codebase or 100% maintained by someone âoutsideâ the >>>>>>>>> community (by which I mean someone who is not a committer and/or >>>>>>>>> operates >>>>>>>>> completely independently from the rest of the project activities). >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > But itâs important to remember thereâs nothing inherent in the >>>>>>>>> package concept that says a package can't be wholly >>>>>>>>> maintained/distributed/supported by the Lucene PMC and our community >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> committers and contributors. Itâs not uncommon for software to have a >>>>>>>>> base >>>>>>>>> package of the core software and also plugins that most users would >>>>>>>>> consider âessentialâ, maintained by the same people making the core, >>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>> which are added after the base install. There would be details to >>>>>>>>> work out >>>>>>>>> in terms of how we manage that, but none of those are technically >>>>>>>>> impossible. I donât think we only have a binary choice (3rd party >>>>>>>>> package >>>>>>>>> or part of Solr core). >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > In fact, Iâd go so far as to say I suspect the only way >>>>>>>>> packages are going to see any real traction is if we take the lead in >>>>>>>>> creating and maintaining a few to show the way forward for everyone >>>>>>>>> else >>>>>>>>> who may be interested in doing the same. The package concept >>>>>>>>> introduces an >>>>>>>>> idea of a Solr ecosystem that has not really existed to date and like >>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>> new ecosystems (communities), it needs some degree of nurturing to >>>>>>>>> grow or >>>>>>>>> it will not take off. >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > To bring it back around to the UI, though, I agree we need to >>>>>>>>> decide: is a UI important? I would argue that it is. I regularly talk >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> users whose Solr knowledge and experience are quite advanced yet who >>>>>>>>> still >>>>>>>>> rely entirely on the UI to carry out basic tasks. Itâs just easier - >>>>>>>>> less >>>>>>>>> to remember, donât need to look up a command, etc. Persistent >>>>>>>>> problems with >>>>>>>>> performance of the UI in large clusters and gaping holes in >>>>>>>>> functionality >>>>>>>>> are deeply frustrating to those users. >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > Because it is important to our users, even if any new UI ends >>>>>>>>> up living outside our community, it will need our explicit approval >>>>>>>>> in some >>>>>>>>> form or weâre going to hear complaints until the end of time that Solr >>>>>>>>> doesnât have a UI (or worse, we âtook awayâ the UI). Without our >>>>>>>>> ongoing >>>>>>>>> endorsement and blessing it will just be another toy maintained by >>>>>>>>> âsomebodyâ (no offense, Marcus) until he is forced to abandon it due >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> lack of user interest and/or lack of personal time to do all the heavy >>>>>>>>> lifting by himself. >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > Cassandra >>>>>>>>> > >> On Apr 9, 2020, 11:32 AM -0500, Erick Erickson < >>>>>>>>> erickerick...@gmail.com>, wrote: >>>>>>>>> > >> Gus: >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> Very thoughtful post. I think you raise an _extremely_ >>>>>>>>> important point about âhow critical is the UI?â And by extension other >>>>>>>>> packages. If theyâre critical to Solr, the question of how to keep >>>>>>>>> them in >>>>>>>>> sync becomes paramount. >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> I agree that the admin UI is important, if we have a >>>>>>>>> mechanism to insure itâs kept in sync with the release that would be >>>>>>>>> near >>>>>>>>> the to of my list. >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> Best, >>>>>>>>> > >> Erick >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> > >>> On Apr 9, 2020, at 12:06 PM, Gus Heck <gus.h...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>> > >>> In my view this brings us up against a bit of an existential >>>>>>>>> question. How do we ensure quality of packages that are key to Solr? >>>>>>>>> I'm >>>>>>>>> sure that there are folks who don't find the UI very useful, but it's >>>>>>>>> important to others. The rationale that "elastic keeps their's >>>>>>>>> separate" >>>>>>>>> has to be tempered by the actual real differences between Elastic and >>>>>>>>> Solr. >>>>>>>>> Elastic has a corporate sponsor, a coordinated road map, and >>>>>>>>> explicitly >>>>>>>>> ensures that all the bits that are maintained separately work >>>>>>>>> together (so >>>>>>>>> that they don't have excessive support costs or bad first experiences >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> impact their bottom line etc.). >>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>> > >>> Solr is in a different place however, and we need to >>>>>>>>> carefully examine the question of whether something that works for >>>>>>>>> Elastic >>>>>>>>> works for us. Lucidworks and several other large companies do spend a >>>>>>>>> lot >>>>>>>>> of money on developers that contribute to Solr, but there is no >>>>>>>>> organization around multiple components that MUST work together. >>>>>>>>> Another >>>>>>>>> example of this is Solr and Lucene, and our defense against a lack of >>>>>>>>> coordination of components in that case has been to unify them into a >>>>>>>>> single release package. >>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>> > >>> So IMHO we need to answer 2 questions: >>>>>>>>> > >>> 1.) Do we consider the UI important. If I'm alone or in a >>>>>>>>> minority in feeling it's important, then so be it and it doesn't >>>>>>>>> really >>>>>>>>> matter what we do. (maybe a vote?) >>>>>>>>> > >>> 2.) If we make it "a package" how do we ensure that >>>>>>>>> important packages such as the UI are never broken by a new release. >>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>> > >>> IMHO I don't thing we should tolerate a situation where >>>>>>>>> things we consider important are broken frequently. >>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>> > >>> For my part obviously my answer to 1 is "yes" :). As for 2, >>>>>>>>> one thing that comes to mind is what the Ant project did (may still >>>>>>>>> do?) >>>>>>>>> with (and my memory from 15 years ago is foggy here, so forgive me if >>>>>>>>> something I say is not quite perfect) the GUMP build server that ran >>>>>>>>> ant >>>>>>>>> builds for a bunch of different projects that depended on ant to >>>>>>>>> ensure >>>>>>>>> early detections of changes that would break existing projects. If we >>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>> a good UI test suite and commit to that being part of the release >>>>>>>>> build >>>>>>>>> package that might be a solution. I honestly don't actually care >>>>>>>>> where it >>>>>>>>> lives, but I do think it hurts us if it becomes broken and unusable, >>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>> hard to install. >>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>> > >>> My worry is that "Solr developers are not UI developers" is >>>>>>>>> really code-words for "I want to be able to break it and let others >>>>>>>>> clean >>>>>>>>> up the mess, because I'm not a UI developer". I have this worry with >>>>>>>>> respect to all "packages", but I may be missing info from discussions >>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>> the package system, which initiated during a very busy period for me >>>>>>>>> so >>>>>>>>> background links that I should have read are welcome if I've got >>>>>>>>> something >>>>>>>>> wrong here :) I went looking for a SIP but didn't see it... I have >>>>>>>>> found a >>>>>>>>> google doc linked from SOLR-13661 >>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>> > >>> Finally to a detail about one of the above suggestions the >>>>>>>>> option to automatically download and install the UI could be good, >>>>>>>>> but that >>>>>>>>> then requires that packages be available from somewhere that never >>>>>>>>> goes >>>>>>>>> away like maven central, or that Apache commits to hosting a >>>>>>>>> repository >>>>>>>>> server indefinitely, but again that's surely been discussed WRT >>>>>>>>> packages >>>>>>>>> already... Using Github in such a way is subject to being broken >>>>>>>>> arbitrarily when Github decides to restrict things for cost reasons >>>>>>>>> (ask >>>>>>>>> Bower about that one WRT rate limiting...) or the "repository" has to >>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>> something local and therefore must be included part of the >>>>>>>>> distribution... >>>>>>>>> at which point it's still a thing we distribute and since we're >>>>>>>>> distributing it and we probably don't mean to distribute broken stuff >>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>> still need UI developers... >>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>> > >>> Also, I thought the package loading stuff was supposed to be >>>>>>>>> disabled by default for security, that seems to conflict with or at >>>>>>>>> least >>>>>>>>> complicate the notion of easily installing as a package. >>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>> > >>> So "package" is a good for modularizing code, or for 3rd >>>>>>>>> party (possibly paid) plugins (I have a client that might find that >>>>>>>>> interesting in the future) but we have to ensure that it doesn't lead >>>>>>>>> to a >>>>>>>>> lack of maintenance for things that are critical. >>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>> > >>> Incidentally though I've said I favor Angular CLI, >>>>>>>>> (significantly because I've got some start on learning it) it also >>>>>>>>> occurs >>>>>>>>> to me that perhaps anything "modern" is a difficulty because those >>>>>>>>> things >>>>>>>>> all have a learning curve, and maximizing accessibility and ease of >>>>>>>>> modifications for folks not steeped in UI development might be our >>>>>>>>> priority >>>>>>>>> (different from the priorities a commercial site would have). The >>>>>>>>> flip side >>>>>>>>> argument is that with a popular framework, it would be easier for UI >>>>>>>>> focused folks to contribute... but will they? and does that leave us >>>>>>>>> perennially rewriting the UI in whatever is popular? (maybe that's >>>>>>>>> ok?) I >>>>>>>>> think in all our decisions here we need to be very careful to >>>>>>>>> distinguish >>>>>>>>> how our needs may differ in unusual ways from the needs of commercial >>>>>>>>> web >>>>>>>>> development. >>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>> > >>> -Gus >>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>> > >>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 8:14 AM Erick Erickson < >>>>>>>>> erickerick...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> > >>> Marcus: >>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>> > >>> re-reading the thread, it looks to me like the consensus >>>>>>>>> from Noble and Ishan and Jan is that as long as the new, nifty UI is a >>>>>>>>> separate package, go ahead and knock yourself out ;). The objection >>>>>>>>> is to >>>>>>>>> making it part of the Solr code base⌠Weâll all be thrilled with if >>>>>>>>> we can >>>>>>>>> rip the current admin UI out ;) >>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>> > >>> That said, I suspect itâll be one of the tighter packages. >>>>>>>>> Itâd be super-cool if we could run the UI tests on Jenkins say once a >>>>>>>>> day >>>>>>>>> just to keep it up to date. >>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>> > >>> The admin UI has always been somewhat awkwardly bolted on >>>>>>>>> the side of Solr, itâd be great to have it have a more elegant >>>>>>>>> architecture. >>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>> > >>> The other exciting thing would be that clients could then >>>>>>>>> use the package code as something they can incorporate/fork/whatever. >>>>>>>>> Practically every client Iâve worked with at large installations has >>>>>>>>> rolled >>>>>>>>> their own dashboard. If they could use a package as a starting point, >>>>>>>>> itâd >>>>>>>>> be welcome. >>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>> > >>> Best, >>>>>>>>> > >>> Erick >>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>> On Apr 9, 2020, at 3:07 AM, 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): >>>>>>>>> > >>>> <image.png> >>>>>>>>> > >>>> no npm fix doesn't magically fix, I wish it did >>>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>> to (2 low sev, non-productions vulns): >>>>>>>>> > >>>> <image.png> >>>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>> 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 â >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>> <image.png> >>>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>> 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 donât think that conflicts with >>>>>>>>> what you >>>>>>>>> have proposed. The NPM command should be issued by Java || or Bash >>>>>>>>> but I >>>>>>>>> donât 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 JĂśrn 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>: >>>>>>>>> > >>>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>> ďťżThanks for kickstarting this and bringing some fresh >>>>>>>>> blood and enthusiasm :) >>>>>>>>> > >>>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>> Looks like others have had similar wish for a standalone >>>>>>>>> Solr Admin App, hereâs 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! >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>> Iâm 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 âpractically unusable for most orgsâ a >>>>>>>>> couple >>>>>>>>> years back, but Facebook made it right really soon after. However, Iâm >>>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>> Itâs 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 >>>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>> > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >>>>>>>>> > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>> > >>> -- >>>>>>>>> > >>> http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) >>>>>>>>> > >>> http://www.the111shift.com (play) >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >>>>>>>>> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >>>>>>>>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>> Noble Paul >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Marcus Eagan >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>> Marcus Eagan >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Marcus Eagan >>>> >>>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > -- http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) http://www.the111shift.com (play)
