[jira] [Assigned] (SOLR-11629) CloudSolrClient.Builder should accept a zk host

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

[jira] [Assigned] (SOLR-11629) CloudSolrClient.Builder should accept a zk host

JIRA jira@apache.org

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-11629?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Varun Thacker reassigned SOLR-11629:

    Assignee: Varun Thacker

> CloudSolrClient.Builder should accept a zk host
> -----------------------------------------------
>                 Key: SOLR-11629
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-11629
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: Bug
>      Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public)
>            Reporter: Varun Thacker
>            Assignee: Varun Thacker
>         Attachments: SOLR-11629.patch
> Today we need to create an empty builder and then wither pass zkHost or withSolrUrl
> {code}
> SolrClient solrClient = new CloudSolrClient.Builder().withZkHost("localhost:9983").build();
> solrClient.request(updateRequest, "gettingstarted");
> {code}
> What if we have two constructors , one that accepts a zkHost and one that accepts a SolrUrl .
> The advantages that I can think of are:
> - It will be obvious to users that we support two mechanisms of creating a CloudSolrClient . The SolrUrl option is cool and applications don't need to know about ZooKeeper and new users will learn about this . Maybe our example's on the ref guide should use this?
> - Today people can set both zkHost and solrUrl  but CloudSolrClient can only utilize one of them
> HttpClient's Builder accepts the host
> {code}
> HttpSolrClient client = new HttpSolrClient.Builder("http://localhost:8983/solr").build();
> client.request(updateRequest, "techproducts");
> {code}

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

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