 |
 |
On 11/27/06, Ross Singer <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On 11/27/06, Kevin S. Clarke <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Seriously, please don't get hung up on the 'proprietary'-ness of > Lucene's query syntax. It's open, it's widely used, and has been > ported to a handful of languages. I mean, why would you trade off > something that works well /now/ and will most likely only get better > for something that you admit sort of sucks? It's not that fulltext for XQuery sucks... it just doesn't exist (right now people do it through extensions to the language). I would expect that the spec that gets written will not be that far from Lucene's syntax. You are talking about the syntax that goes into the search box right? I don't expect an XQuery fulltext spec will change that -- it is just how you pass that along to Lucene that will be different (e.g., do you do it in Java, in Ruby, in XML via Solr, do you do it in XQuery, etc.) > And I agree with Erik's assessment that it's better to keep your > repository and index separated for exactly the sort of scenario you > worry about. If a super-duper new indexer comes along, you can always > just switch to it, then. How do you switch to it? How do the pieces talk? This is the point of standards. If there is a standard way of addressing an index then you don't have to care what the newest greatest indexer is. This paragraph seems in contrast to your one above. Kevin