VOTE: solr no longer webapp

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
50 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

VOTE: solr no longer webapp

Robert Muir

I think solr should no longer be a war file but a search app. I don't care how it accomplishes this: jetty, netty, its all up to us.

Let me know your ideas: I think its a necessary step to move solr forwards.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: VOTE: solr no longer webapp

Otis Gospodnetić
Q: why is being a webapp bad?  Is it limiting in some way?
Problematic for some reason?

Otis


On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:14 AM, Robert Muir <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I think solr should no longer be a war file but a search app. I don't care
> how it accomplishes this: jetty, netty, its all up to us.
>
> Let me know your ideas: I think its a necessary step to move solr forwards.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: VOTE: solr no longer webapp

Mark Miller-3
In reply to this post by Robert Muir
+1

Mark

Sent from my iPhone

On May 2, 2013, at 9:14 PM, Robert Muir <[hidden email]> wrote:

I think solr should no longer be a war file but a search app. I don't care how it accomplishes this: jetty, netty, its all up to us.

Let me know your ideas: I think its a necessary step to move solr forwards.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: VOTE: solr no longer webapp

Christian Moen
In reply to this post by Robert Muir
+1

Christian

iPhoneから送信

2013/05/02 21:14、Robert Muir <[hidden email]> のメッセージ:

I think solr should no longer be a war file but a search app. I don't care how it accomplishes this: jetty, netty, its all up to us.

Let me know your ideas: I think its a necessary step to move solr forwards.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: VOTE: solr no longer webapp

Ryan McKinley
In reply to this post by Robert Muir
+0

I have not used the .war for many many years -- I have nothing against dropping it, but I wonder what problem we are solving.

Is this just to avoid trying to officially support any setup other then the solid/tested one?



On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 9:14 PM, Robert Muir <[hidden email]> wrote:

I think solr should no longer be a war file but a search app. I don't care how it accomplishes this: jetty, netty, its all up to us.

Let me know your ideas: I think its a necessary step to move solr forwards.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: VOTE: solr no longer webapp

Walter Underwood
-1

We run everything under Tomcat. This would be a big, unnecessary hassle for ops and an obstacle to adoption.

wunder

On May 2, 2013, at 9:36 PM, Ryan McKinley wrote:

+0

I have not used the .war for many many years -- I have nothing against dropping it, but I wonder what problem we are solving.

Is this just to avoid trying to officially support any setup other then the solid/tested one?



On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 9:14 PM, Robert Muir <[hidden email]> wrote:

I think solr should no longer be a war file but a search app. I don't care how it accomplishes this: jetty, netty, its all up to us.

Let me know your ideas: I think its a necessary step to move solr forwards.






Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: VOTE: solr no longer webapp

Gora Mohanty-3
On 3 May 2013 10:10, Walter Underwood <[hidden email]> wrote:
> -1
>
> We run everything under Tomcat. This would be a big, unnecessary hassle for
> ops and an obstacle to adoption.

Ditto, here for Tomcat usage. This is largely because we
were already familiar with Tomcat, though at the time of
Solr 1.4 we looked at Jetty and decided to stay on Tomcat.

It is only lately that I have come to hear that Solr
developers consider Jetty to be the platform of choice.
This is fine, and we will re-investigate Jetty, but what
would be the reason to pro-actively drop the .war?

Regards,
Gora

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: VOTE: solr no longer webapp

Toke Eskildsen
In reply to this post by Robert Muir
Robert Muir [[hidden email]]:
> I think solr should no longer be a war file but a search app. I don't care how it accomplishes this: jetty, netty, its all up to us.

What is the problem with the current WAR packaging and what do you hope to gain by switching to (I presume) a standalone JAR?

- Toke Eskildsen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: VOTE: solr no longer webapp

Jan Høydahl / Cominvent
In reply to this post by Robert Muir
+0

Ideally, Solr won't need to be a webapp. Some things would be simplified by being a selfcontained app. So I'm ok with playing with alternatives for 6.x or 7.x.

But in the short-to-medium term (5.x), I'd say "There's no real problem to fix". Besides, users are relying on features of AppServers such as auth and stuff, so we should understand all those dependencies before jumping.

--
Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com

3. mai 2013 kl. 06:14 skrev Robert Muir <[hidden email]>:

I think solr should no longer be a war file but a search app. I don't care how it accomplishes this: jetty, netty, its all up to us.

Let me know your ideas: I think its a necessary step to move solr forwards.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: VOTE: solr no longer webapp

Peter Sturge-2
In reply to this post by Robert Muir
-1

Solr is used in many ways and scenarios. To cubbyhole it by not allowing it to integrate with current web containers would really hurt its excellent flexibility.
Many many (most?) Solr implementations use the war very extensively and to very good effect.
Moving forward, how about having the war and some standalone package as a separate deliverable option?

Peter



On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 5:14 AM, Robert Muir <[hidden email]> wrote:

I think solr should no longer be a war file but a search app. I don't care how it accomplishes this: jetty, netty, its all up to us.

Let me know your ideas: I think its a necessary step to move solr forwards.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: VOTE: solr no longer webapp

Shawn Heisey-4
In reply to this post by Robert Muir
On 5/2/2013 10:14 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
> I think solr should no longer be a war file but a search app. I don't
> care how it accomplishes this: jetty, netty, its all up to us.
>
> Let me know your ideas: I think its a necessary step to move solr forwards.

Being fairly new to this, I'm not sure how to express my thoughts on
this as a specific vote.  I *think* that what I'm after is:

-0

I don't have any concrete objections, just questions and some reasons
for not changing.  If -0 is not the way to express that, let me know.

What specific deficiencies are you trying to solve?  I don't think we
should go with this idea just to eliminate a dependency or be like the
competition.  This move must also fix a problem that has no other good
solution.  We already come extremely close to being an executable app by
including jetty in the example.

Something that I think could possibly be a good compromise, if others
think it's OK:  Create a build target that builds a standalone
application.  In 5.0 (or as soon as it's deemed ready), use that for the
example.  Wait until 5.0 to make it the default build target.  If people
like it, keep it that way.  If they don't, revert in a later minor
release.  If the nondefault build option starts to see very little use,
we can eliminate it in a later major release.

Using a container gives us stuff for free that we don't have to write
and debug:

A tested start/stop mechanism included by the user's choice of container
or OS distribution.  I chose to use the included jetty and wrote my own
init script, but that is outside the skill set of lots of people.  This
might be one of the reasons you want to make this move - but we'd face
the same problem if Solr were executable.

Another thing that we get for free, which someone else already
mentioned, is authentication.  I don't use this, but it's an important
thing to have.

My init script uses jetty's STOP.PORT mechanism as its first way to stop
Solr.  It does have a couple of other ways to kill it if that doesn't
work.  I plan to contribute my (RHEL/CentOS-specific) init script to the
project when I have time to clean it up, and I can make some attempts at
making versions for other major distributions.

Thanks,
Shawn


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: VOTE: solr no longer webapp

Robert Muir
In reply to this post by Walter Underwood


On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Walter Underwood <[hidden email]> wrote:
-1

We run everything under Tomcat. This would be a big, unnecessary hassle for ops and an obstacle to adoption.

I don't intend for my vote to be popular with users, instead for this to be a developer vote.

Users will rarely vote in favor the removal of a "feature" (in this case the .war "feature"), but sometimes it is a necessary thing to do.

In the case of no longer supporting tomcat: this is an extremely useful feature in itself. "not using tomcat" == utf-8 working out of box, threadpools with reasonable defaults configured out of box, tested configuration executed in open source unit tests, ...

I cannot understand why anyone would want to use tomcat. There is no possible reason to justify such a bad decision.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: VOTE: solr no longer webapp

Steve Molloy
In reply to this post by Shawn Heisey-4
-1

For all the reasons listed so far... Basically, Solr should focus on search and let whatever container hosting it deal with protocols and communications. Packaging as a war makes deployment really easy (actually wished ZooKeeper could also run in a container) and system admins can easily maintain systems when all its components use the same underlying technology (tomcat in our case).

So unless someone has some example of limitations caused by being packaged as a war, I don't see why. Always seen the Jetty bundled in example as just that, an example to get you up and running fast. For production systems, I have never seen Jetty being used.

Steve
________________________________________
From: Shawn Heisey [[hidden email]]
Sent: May 3, 2013 10:16 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: VOTE: solr no longer webapp

On 5/2/2013 10:14 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
> I think solr should no longer be a war file but a search app. I don't
> care how it accomplishes this: jetty, netty, its all up to us.
>
> Let me know your ideas: I think its a necessary step to move solr forwards.

Being fairly new to this, I'm not sure how to express my thoughts on
this as a specific vote.  I *think* that what I'm after is:

-0

I don't have any concrete objections, just questions and some reasons
for not changing.  If -0 is not the way to express that, let me know.

What specific deficiencies are you trying to solve?  I don't think we
should go with this idea just to eliminate a dependency or be like the
competition.  This move must also fix a problem that has no other good
solution.  We already come extremely close to being an executable app by
including jetty in the example.

Something that I think could possibly be a good compromise, if others
think it's OK:  Create a build target that builds a standalone
application.  In 5.0 (or as soon as it's deemed ready), use that for the
example.  Wait until 5.0 to make it the default build target.  If people
like it, keep it that way.  If they don't, revert in a later minor
release.  If the nondefault build option starts to see very little use,
we can eliminate it in a later major release.

Using a container gives us stuff for free that we don't have to write
and debug:

A tested start/stop mechanism included by the user's choice of container
or OS distribution.  I chose to use the included jetty and wrote my own
init script, but that is outside the skill set of lots of people.  This
might be one of the reasons you want to make this move - but we'd face
the same problem if Solr were executable.

Another thing that we get for free, which someone else already
mentioned, is authentication.  I don't use this, but it's an important
thing to have.

My init script uses jetty's STOP.PORT mechanism as its first way to stop
Solr.  It does have a couple of other ways to kill it if that doesn't
work.  I plan to contribute my (RHEL/CentOS-specific) init script to the
project when I have time to clean it up, and I can make some attempts at
making versions for other major distributions.

Thanks,
Shawn


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: VOTE: solr no longer webapp

Uwe Schindler
In reply to this post by Robert Muir

FYI: The Tomcat UTF-8 problem and the extra configuration needed because of that is no longer a problem since I fixed the URL-Decoding to be handled by Solr’s dispatch filter. The servlet container is out of responsibility, it just have to provide the query string or ServletInputStream (depends on GET/POST). Example/test_utf8.sh works out of the box with Tomcat or JBoss.

 

Nevertheless I would also tend to no longer publish a WAR.

 

-----

Uwe Schindler

H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen

http://www.thetaphi.de

eMail: [hidden email]

 

From: Robert Muir [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 4:43 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: VOTE: solr no longer webapp

 

 

On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Walter Underwood <[hidden email]> wrote:

-1

 

We run everything under Tomcat. This would be a big, unnecessary hassle for ops and an obstacle to adoption.


I don't intend for my vote to be popular with users, instead for this to be a developer vote.

Users will rarely vote in favor the removal of a "feature" (in this case the .war "feature"), but sometimes it is a necessary thing to do.

In the case of no longer supporting tomcat: this is an extremely useful feature in itself. "not using tomcat" == utf-8 working out of box, threadpools with reasonable defaults configured out of box, tested configuration executed in open source unit tests, ...

I cannot understand why anyone would want to use tomcat. There is no possible reason to justify such a bad decision.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: VOTE: solr no longer webapp

Erick Erickson
So, let's say this idea is adopted. Let's further claim that my
organization, for whatever reason, _requires_ that we use Tomcat. What
are the steps that I have to follow to continue to use Tomcat? (or
JBoss or whatever)...

At root I'm asking how many hoops we'll require the user in the above
situation to jump through to use Solr. Is it just executing 'ant
dist-war' or some such?

Let's be sure to lay out the alternative so people don't panic unless
they should...

On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Uwe Schindler <[hidden email]> wrote:

> FYI: The Tomcat UTF-8 problem and the extra configuration needed because of
> that is no longer a problem since I fixed the URL-Decoding to be handled by
> Solr’s dispatch filter. The servlet container is out of responsibility, it
> just have to provide the query string or ServletInputStream (depends on
> GET/POST). Example/test_utf8.sh works out of the box with Tomcat or JBoss.
>
>
>
> Nevertheless I would also tend to no longer publish a WAR.
>
>
>
> -----
>
> Uwe Schindler
>
> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
>
> http://www.thetaphi.de
>
> eMail: [hidden email]
>
>
>
> From: Robert Muir [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 4:43 PM
>
>
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: VOTE: solr no longer webapp
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Walter Underwood <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> -1
>
>
>
> We run everything under Tomcat. This would be a big, unnecessary hassle for
> ops and an obstacle to adoption.
>
>
> I don't intend for my vote to be popular with users, instead for this to be
> a developer vote.
>
> Users will rarely vote in favor the removal of a "feature" (in this case the
> .war "feature"), but sometimes it is a necessary thing to do.
>
> In the case of no longer supporting tomcat: this is an extremely useful
> feature in itself. "not using tomcat" == utf-8 working out of box,
> threadpools with reasonable defaults configured out of box, tested
> configuration executed in open source unit tests, ...
>
> I cannot understand why anyone would want to use tomcat. There is no
> possible reason to justify such a bad decision.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: VOTE: solr no longer webapp

Robert Muir


On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 8:02 AM, Erick Erickson <[hidden email]> wrote:
So, let's say this idea is adopted. Let's further claim that my
organization, for whatever reason, _requires_ that we use Tomcat. What
are the steps that I have to follow to continue to use Tomcat? (or
JBoss or whatever)...

This question does not apply because solr would no longer be a web application.

Does your organization require that your mysql run inside a tomcat servlet container? what about your firefox web browser or openoffice?

Of course not: they arent web applications
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: VOTE: solr no longer webapp

Adrien Grand
In reply to this post by Robert Muir
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 6:14 AM, Robert Muir <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I think solr should no longer be a war file but a search app. I don't care
> how it accomplishes this: jetty, netty, its all up to us.
>
> Let me know your ideas: I think its a necessary step to move solr forwards.

+1 I think this would improve adoption by people who are not from the
Java world and prevent users from running into trouble related to
servlet container implementations, versions or configuration options.

--
Adrien

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: VOTE: solr no longer webapp

Michael McCandless-2
In reply to this post by Robert Muir
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:14 AM, Robert Muir <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I think solr should no longer be a war file but a search app. I don't care
> how it accomplishes this: jetty, netty, its all up to us.
>
> Let me know your ideas: I think its a necessary step to move solr forwards.

+1

Mike McCandless

http://blog.mikemccandless.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: VOTE: solr no longer webapp

Steve Molloy
So, if ever this passes, what would be the upgrade path for all the deployments using Solr as a webapp inside tomcat or other container?
________________________________________
From: Michael McCandless [[hidden email]]
Sent: May 3, 2013 12:09 PM
To: Lucene/Solr dev
Subject: Re: VOTE: solr no longer webapp

On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:14 AM, Robert Muir <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I think solr should no longer be a war file but a search app. I don't care
> how it accomplishes this: jetty, netty, its all up to us.
>
> Let me know your ideas: I think its a necessary step to move solr forwards.

+1

Mike McCandless

http://blog.mikemccandless.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: VOTE: solr no longer webapp

Robert Muir

# rm -rf tomcat
# gzip -dc solr.tgz | tar -xvf -
# cd solr/example
# java -jar start.jar


On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Steve Molloy <[hidden email]> wrote:
So, if ever this passes, what would be the upgrade path for all the deployments using Solr as a webapp inside tomcat or other container?
________________________________________
From: Michael McCandless [[hidden email]]
Sent: May 3, 2013 12:09 PM
To: Lucene/Solr dev
Subject: Re: VOTE: solr no longer webapp

On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:14 AM, Robert Muir <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I think solr should no longer be a war file but a search app. I don't care
> how it accomplishes this: jetty, netty, its all up to us.
>
> Let me know your ideas: I think its a necessary step to move solr forwards.

+1

Mike McCandless

http://blog.mikemccandless.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


123