My main concern is if we don't put it out there as front and center and
hence don't allow users to use it, what motivation does that leave for
developers to continue working on it? If it is not fully ready, some of us
don't want it to be out there prominently for users to use it. Hence, if I
can't ensure my efforts will make it fully ready, what is my motivation to
work on it? By making it default, we signal to users that this is the
future and you should try it out. Though, it is experimental at the moment.
Or, use older one, which will eventually be removed.
On Thu, 28 Oct, 2021, 12:30 am Jason Gerlowski, <gerlowsk...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > For whatever functionality is exposed via V2 APIs, it is ready.
>
> You lose me right around here Ishan. IMO exposing functionality makes
> a particular V2 API "usable", it doesn't necessarily make it "ready".
> "Ready" implies some confidence that I personally don't have without
> our test randomization using v2 APIs, without Solr itself doing some
> dogfooding in SolrJ and in the Admin UI, etc. Those are the biggest 3
> gaps that I see personally. For me, "ready" comes down to: would I
> recommend v2 to a client? And as it stands today with those gaps, I
> personally wouldn't.
>
> > If there are critical gaps in V2, lets treat them as blockers before 9.0
>
> I don't relish the idea of holding up a looong awaited major release
> on v2 API changes that a few volunteers are chipping away at in scant
> personal time. I understand the rare opportunity that major releases
> offer in terms of deprecation and code removal, and that it's tempting
> for that reason. But it just doesn't seem realistic to me with
> current momentum. Better to let the work progress as devs can do it,
> than slamming the brakes on 9.0 for who knows how long. If people are
> terribly bummed that v1-deprecation might miss 9.0, then we can always
> consider a shorter 9.x dev cycle to get it deprecated and removed for
> a quick 10.0.
> ----
>
> There's been decent response, so an attempt to summarize:
>
> * (So far) everyone seems on board with some sort of designation of
> v2's "evolving" status. (Jason, Eric, Gus, Ishan, Houston). Though
> exactly what that should be ("experimental"? "beta"? etc) is
> uncertain.
> * (So far) there's broad support for relaxing backcompat (Jason, Eric,
> Ishan, Houston). Though there was a concern about breaking existing
> users (Gus).
> ** An alternate suggestion was made to do a v3 API in order to
> maintain v2 backcompat (Gus), though this raised concerns about
> slowing down development or being a step back (Jason, Eric, Ishan)
> * Mixed discussion on making v2 "default" for 9.0. Some in favor
> (Ishan), some against (Jason, Houston).
>
> (If I've mischaracterized anything here, please correct.)
>
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 1:23 PM Eric Pugh
> <ep...@opensourceconnections.com> wrote:
> >
> > I thought about fixing SOLR-14795 when I documented the v2 apis, and the
> amount of change and the “ugh, it will be hard to have back compatibility”
> led me to not trying to move any of the sub tickets forward.
> >
> > If the V2 version of the API’s is more open to change, then it would
> make it easier for me to want to try and pick up some of these tickets.
> >
> > I think this is an example of why we might want to rethink what we label
> v2 API’s ;-). Experimental or otherwise!
> >
> > On Oct 27, 2021, at 12:24 PM, Alexandre Rafalovitch <arafa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hmm,
> >
> > My understanding was that V2 Config API is part of the V2 APIs and
> > relevant discussion, so when the questions about gaps came up, I felt
> > it was relevant. Perhaps it is less relevant than I thought. I will
> > let others judge and apologize if I introduced too much noise.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Alex.
> >
> > On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 at 12:04, Ishan Chattopadhyaya
> > <ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Alex, these seem to be issues with config API (and should be solved),
> while this discussion is about v2 version of all APIs. What is the
> relevance here?
> >
> > On Wed, 27 Oct, 2021, 9:24 pm Alexandre Rafalovitch, <arafa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I feel that the summary of my umbrella case (SOLR-14795) qualifies for
> this:
> >
> > "
> > General issues with output being materialized schema:
> > * parameters have already been resolved and are not indicated
> > * empty keys may not be output (e.g. dataDir)
> > * default parameters will be output that are not in solrconfig.xml
> > "
> >
> > This had failed to start the discussion at the time, but I feel that
> > it should have, as Solr configuration without being able to specify
> > and propagate the defaults implies a very different workflow.
> >
> > On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 at 11:34, Ishan Chattopadhyaya
> > <ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > some aspects of the v2 API are clearly downgrades from the v1 API.
> >
> >
> > Please open a JIRA, and we can discuss there. If there's already any
> discussion, please point to them.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@solr.apache.org
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@solr.apache.org
> >
> >
> > _______________________
> > Eric Pugh | Founder & CEO | OpenSource Connections, LLC | 434.466.1467 |
> http://www.opensourceconnections.com | My Free/Busy
> > Co-Author: Apache Solr Enterprise Search Server, 3rd Ed
> > This e-mail and all contents, including attachments, is considered to be
> Company Confidential unless explicitly stated otherwise, regardless of
> whether attachments are marked as such.
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@solr.apache.org
>
>
