Mike Klaas wrote:
On 7/21/06, Andrew May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, that explains why I wasn't getting any variations when using the
gradient formatter.
Also, creating the QueryScorer with the fieldName prevents highlights
from appearing where
they shouldn't - e.g. when searching for +ti
: > I think there might be value in providing less explicit Highlighter
: > configuration and instead provide a set of intuitive options form
: > which we can construct various configurations.
:
: Sounds good... if we do it well, pretty much no one will need a custom
: highlighter.
: In the very r
On 7/21/06, Mike Klaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There could be some
sort of CommonParams-like class which parses the default parameters,
like it does currently (but adding logic for per-field overrides), but
having an addition method which accepts a SolrQueryRequest and adds
any per-query overr
On 7/21/06, Andrew May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, that explains why I wasn't getting any variations when using the gradient
formatter.
Also, creating the QueryScorer with the fieldName prevents highlights from
appearing where
they shouldn't - e.g. when searching for +title:management +jo
Mike Klaas wrote:
I think there might be value in providing less explicit Highlighter
configuration and instead provide a set of intuitive options form
which we can construct various configurations. For another point of
configuration is the Scorer -- right now the default QueryScorer is
used.
On 7/21/06, Mike Klaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think there might be value in providing less explicit Highlighter
configuration and instead provide a set of intuitive options form
which we can construct various configurations.
Sounds good... if we do it well, pretty much no one will need a
Just a FYI - I messed up the patch somehow - one of the files had got reverted to an
earlier version, so what I attached doesn't actually compile.
Given the discussion about config, it doesn't really seem worth attaching a fixed patch,
but let me know if that would be useful.
-Andrew
On 7/21/06, Andrew May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mike Klaas wrote:
> [snip general config object constructor]
Sounds like a good idea. Do you think there's still value in being able to
choose between
simple/gradient with defined properties for the arguments? Unless someone wants
to use a
Mike Klaas wrote:
Highlighting has definately grown to the point where it should be in
its own class, and I could see the justification for giving it its own
package, given there there are now at least three supporting classes
for Solr, and this could easily grow.
I was a bit nervous about doi
On 7/21/06, Andrew May (JIRA) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As discussed in the mailing list, I've been looking at adding additional
configuration options for highlighting.
I've made quite a few changes to the properties for highlighting:
Cool -- this is definately useful.
Properties that can
Add additional configuration options for Highlighting
-
Key: SOLR-37
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-37
Project: Solr
Issue Type: Improvement
Components: search
11 matches
Mail list logo
