[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-15737?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17617400#comment-17617400
]
Jason Gerlowski commented on SOLR-15737:
----------------------------------------
Short answer: yes!
Longer answer: Yes, for two main reasons:
# I was oversimplifying a bit in calling {{/admin/cores?action=BACKUPCORE}} an
entirely internal API. It's difficult, but it is possible for external users
to call it. And I've seen at least a few threads on our *users@* mailing list
where users take advantage of that and use the API directly.
# Even for truly internal APIs, there's value in giving them a v2 equivalent.
The v2 "framework" for defining APIs is easier for developers to work with,
integrates better with external tooling, etc. And from a longer term
maintenance perspective, if we can reach v1<->v2 parity for all APIs, we could
eventually remove the v1 APIs and the framework behind them - which would be a
_huge_ maintenance "win".
> Ensure all (desired) v1 APIs have v2 equivalent
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-15737
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-15737
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: v2 API
> Reporter: Jason Gerlowski
> Priority: Major
> Labels: V2, newdev
>
> Nothing in Solr's build system enforced consistency across v1<->v2, so as a
> result today, many v1 APIs (or API sub-commands) have no v2 counterpart. In
> some rare cases this was intentional (e.g.
> \{{/solr/admin/collections?action=MIGRATESTATEFORMAT}} ), but in most cases
> it's the result of unintentional omission.
> This ticket aims to remedying this, by finding v1 APIs without a v2
> counterpart and adding them where desired.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@solr.apache.org
