Bin/solr start actually is mandatory now, I would have to look up when we made that change. It feels like a while ago….
I will put up a pr and we can see how it feels. Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 13, 2024, at 5:05 PM, Houston Putman <hous...@apache.org> wrote: > > I thought we were eventually going to make `start` mandatory, thus no > confusion when just providing bin/solr -v? > > Anyways, I'm not going to make a line in the sand. I just think '-v' works > better as "verbose", though I do understand others use it for "version". > > - Houston > >> On Sun, Sep 8, 2024 at 9:35 PM David Smiley <dsmi...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> Maybe both? Meaning, if "-v" is provided, start Solr in verbose mode and >> print the version number first. >> >> On Sun, Sep 8, 2024 at 2:34 PM Christos Malliaridis < >> c.malliari...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Houston for your perspective and sorey for the late response. >>> >>> I have considered both outcomes and thought that going with the -v for >>> version is more expected for new users. Usually CLI tools allow something >>> like "[command] -v" to get quick and easy the version of the CLI tool / >>> command. In the case of "bin/solr -v", with -v for verbose, it would >> start >>> a Solr instance with the default values if I am not mistaken, which may >> not >>> be the expected output for new users that use -v to check if the tool is >>> successfully installed / accessible. >>> >>> With "version" as argument, like in "bin/solr version", the version turns >>> into a "tool" and it accepts inputs like flags. I would like to avoid >> such >>> tool to avoid further confussion and new ways of getting the same >>> information in different ways, but we have cases where we might want to >> get >>> the version metadata of a solr instance, rather than the CLI tool itself. >>> For these cases, additional flsgs could influence the output. Whether >> this >>> causes more confussion or is to be expected may depend on how the version >>> information is printed / outputed now and in the future. >>> >>> It is also worth noting that our current logic parses the -v into the >>> argument "version" and later executes the VersionTool. This behavior >> could >>> be replaced if we wouldn't have a VersionTool or if we follow your >>> recommendation of using -v for verbose. >>> >>> So regardless of my proposal of using "-v" for version, your proposal of >>> using it for verbose is also reasonable. >>> >>> Therefore, I'd like to get more opinions / perspectives on that, so that >> we >>> can decide for a the most suitable resolution and continue with the >>> improvements. >>> >>> Best, >>> Christos >>> >>> >>>> On Fri, 6 Sep 2024, 22:15 Houston Putman, <hous...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Why keep "-v" and "-version" around? I'd much rather keep the very >>>> widely-used "-v"="--verbose". >>>> >>>> Only supporting "bin/solr version" makes much more sense to me. And I'm >>> not >>>> even particularly worried about back compat for this one. >>>> >>>> - Houston >>>> >>>> On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 1:10 PM Christos Malliaridis < >>>> c.malliari...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Many thanks to Eric for handling all the conflicts so far and >> creating >>>> PRs >>>>> in an instant. >>>>> >>>>> The next conflict we have in Solr is the -v flag. -v is used for >>> version >>>> in >>>>> bin/solr.cmd (explicitly) and SolrCLI, for verbose (with the partly >>>> removed >>>>> uppercase variant -V for a special case) in multiple CLI classes, and >>> for >>>>> value in ClusterTool. Ticket SOLR-17442 >>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-17442> proposes to >> replace >>>> via >>>>> deprecation "verbose" with "debug" (-d and --debug), keep -v for >>> version >>>>> and remove -v for "value". I hope this proposal is reasonable and >> makes >>>>> sense. Input, opinions and objections are of course welcomed as well. >>>>> >>>>> *P.S. I've read that arguments and flags should be distinguished, >> even >>>>> though I was using them interchangeably so far for the CLI. What we >>> have >>>>> been referring to so far were CLI flags, so I'll try to use the right >>>>> naming from now on. A nice website with useful information that Eric >>>> showed >>>>> me is *https://clig.dev/. >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 7:51 PM Christos Malliaridis < >>>>> c.malliari...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Continuing with the next conflict, >>>>>> >>>>>> We use -p mainly for the port argument and it is currently used in >>>>>> RunExampleTool and SolrExporter as such. -p is also used in >>> ConfigTool >>>>> for >>>>>> --property, in PackageTool for --param, and in PostTool for >> --params. >>>>> This >>>>>> is more of a "light" conflict, as it does not break any >>> functionality, >>>>> but >>>>>> potentially causes confusion to new users. >>>>>> >>>>>> The port argument is one of the first arguments new users learn >> when >>>>>> starting Solr, and other tools use -p for port as well. Therefore, >> I >>>>>> propose to reserve -p for port, deprecate -p in ConfigTool, >>> PackageTool >>>>> and >>>>>> PostTool in version 9.8 and remove it completely in 10.0. This >> avoids >>>>> false >>>>>> expectations of providing a port number via -p for actions like >> "solr >>>>>> config" "solr package" or "solr post", which may lead to unwanted >>>>> results. >>>>>> The port argument may then be added like the solr url argument >>>>> (--solr-url) >>>>>> to all tools if necessary. >>>>>> >>>>>> If there are any objections, please let us know. I've created >>>> SOLR-17431 >>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-17431>, but it can >> still >>>> be >>>>>> resolved and closed if we decide to take a different action. >>>>>> >>>>>> P.S. Since --param in PackageTool and --params in PostTool are used >>> for >>>>>> passing parameters, we can consider in another discussion to >>> deprecate >>>>> and >>>>>> replace --param with --params. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 11:17 PM Christos Malliaridis < >>>>>> c.malliari...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello everyone, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In order to start resolving the CLI argument conflicts from >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-17383, we started to >>>>>>> deprecate (in 9.X) and remove or change (in 10.0/main) the >>> overlapping >>>>>>> arguments. I would like to use this thread for tracking each >>> conflict >>>>>>> resolution. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A conflict may be a bug or limitation of the CLI, but also just a >>>>>>> possible misinterpretation for new users. Therefore, we should >>> decide >>>>> for >>>>>>> each conflict what action we should take for the upcoming versions >>> of >>>>> Solr. >>>>>>> The current state can be tracked at >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ws44kN51WnGwQzOXc8KKRQ93TMgHSqIGb02MRWFel_U/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>> (work in progress). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Starting with -h, it is currently used for printing the help >>>> information >>>>>>> (equivalent to --help) and for providing a hostname in >>>>> RunExampleTool.java >>>>>>> (equivalent to --host, in 9.X and main). >>>>>>> I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-17423, which >>>>>>> proposes the deprecation of -h for hostname in the context of >>>>>>> RunExampleTool, and the removal of it in future major releases >> (10.0 >>>>>>> ongoing). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If there are any objections, please let us know. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> Christos >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 9:36 PM Christos Malliaridis < >>>>>>> c.malliari...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hello devs, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would like to get some attention on overlapping arguments that >> I >>>> have >>>>>>>> found and documented in SOLR-17383 >>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-17383>. This was one >>> of >>>> my >>>>>>>> "bad experiences" when I started working with Solr, so I think it >>> may >>>>> be >>>>>>>> more important than I thought. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> With the great work and progress of Eric Pugh moving parts of the >>>>>>>> scripts to Java and my contribution in finding usages of >> deprecated >>>>>>>> arguments, I got even more curious to identify and document the >>>>> overlapping >>>>>>>> arguments in both short and long terms. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am not sure what would be the best way to address this, but I >>> think >>>>> we >>>>>>>> can improve some arguments in various ways, now that we have >>> already >>>>>>>> started deprecating the usage of specific arguments and argument >>>>> formats. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now that we have moved the argument parsing to Java, we could >>>>> eventually >>>>>>>> make use of Java's inheritance and leverage some arguments like >> the >>>>> Solr >>>>>>>> URL, --help or --verbose to make them available in all cases if >>>>> applicable. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> - Christos >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@solr.apache.org
