I wonder if we could use either for the various param names that can
be used in either solrconfig.xml or passed in via request? Use either
"fields" or "fl"? As we add more rich functionality like in the
extractor aren't we going to be passing more and more params, and
having long names is much easier to read. And then for those
optimizing performance, they can swap to the short names?
On Jul 28, 2009, at 6:50 AM, Noble Paul നോബിള്
नोब्ळ् wrote:
+1 for names in its actual form as long as it is not very long. In
config it is nice to see long names becaase it enhances readability.
But ,for request params, short ones are better because that price is
paid by each request. imagine 'facetQuery' instead of 'fq' or fields
instead of 'fl'
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Grant
Ingersoll<gsing...@apache.org> wrote:
OK, color me confused about how naming should be done for params.
There
clearly seems to be two camps in Solr-land: 1. those who
abbreviate params
and 2. those who don't. Pick your sides, please! ;-)
On SOLR-284 and SOLR-769, I had "long" names and Yonik changed them
to be
shorter ("uprefix", anyone? Bueller? Yeah, it means unknown
prefix). On
SOLR-1237, the general feedback is that evt should be event and that
newSrchr should be newSearcher or new_searcher or something like
that. The
SpellCheckComp. tends to be verbose, while faceting tends to be
succinct.
Thus, I'd like to suggest we layout some conventions for naming, as I
personally am confused. Once we do this, we can wiki it up and
then have
something to refer others too.
-Grnt Ingrsll (aka Grant Ingersoll)
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Noble Paul | Principal Engineer| AOL | http://aol.com
-----------------------------------------------------
Eric Pugh | Principal | OpenSource Connections, LLC | 434.466.1467 |
http://www.opensourceconnections.com
Free/Busy: http://tinyurl.com/eric-cal
