On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:55 PM, Chris Hostetter<hossman_luc...@fucit.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! ;-) > : > : Tend towards brevity, but not for the sake of readability. > > agreed. > > for me it's primarily an issue of huffman encoding: > > 1) params that are going to be used all the freaking time, by lots of > people, frequently when constructing URLs (which will get sent over the > wire millions of times), should be on the shorter side (q, fl, sort, rows, > etc...). > > 2) params that are going to be used extremely infrequently, and typically > hardcoded inot a config in the rare cases where they are used, should be > longer and more verbose (the verbosity being an issue of self documenting > since people won't be use to seeing them and won't immediately recognize > them) amen........ > > > (Disclaimer: i freely admit that i screwed the pooch on all those dismax > params. i came up with those back before it was possible to put defaults > in solrconfig.xml, so the "keep things that will be in millions of URLs > going over teh wire" mantra kicked in) > > > > -Hoss > >
-- ----------------------------------------------------- Noble Paul | Principal Engineer| AOL | http://aol.com
