Glad to see we can limit this discussion to "bin/post" and not other non-prod/maybe-prod things listed.
I think bin/post should either exist where it is or not exist; moving it to the sandbox misses the point. "curl" may very well be plenty adequate. FWIW your arguments work for me to ditch bin/post, but it could be useful to hear from educators/trainers as well. It's been a while since I could count myself as such. BTW I know of at least one advantage over curl. I was once posting massive many-gigabyte files to Solr in CSV (for a POC scenario). Curl wanted to memory-map the whole thing and failed to get the RAM to do it. "bin/post" streamed the whole thing quite fast. I know I made improvements to help it in this specific regard. That said, if bin/post is mostly redundant, I wouldn't want us to maintain bin/post forever *just* because of this. ~ David Smiley Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 2:05 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: > We have advertised the post tool in the past in our examples/tutorials. > Difficult to erase all traces of it from the web. > It is better to remove the tool from the Solr distro, and, maybe, relocate > it to the sandbox/extras repo, from where a user can consciously choose to > download and use it if needed. > > If we have proper documentation, I don't see how anyone building POCs will > miss out on the post tool. Is there a use case that users can't achieve > easily through a documented method that the post tool caters to? > > On Tue, 23 May 2023 at 11:25, David Smiley <dsmi...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Ishan, your beliefs surprise me. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point > of > > view... is the key word of your response "advertise" and we can then > debate > > what that means? In other words, are you saying bin/post (and other > things > > you don't think should be used in production) should not exist at all or > we > > should be very careful about how we "advertise" its existence? I think > > features that help people build POCs / explore / learn are good things, > > even if not used typically in production. At times we over-advertised > > features without enough disclaimers on the suitability of the feature in > > question. > > > > ~ David Smiley > > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley > > > > > > On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 10:09 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < > > ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Ishan, you did not give an argument for why you believe bin/post > should > > > go away. Do you feel it is better to document all the cURL commands to > be > > > more "standard"? > > > > > > Precisely! We should never advertise anything that shouldn't be used at > > > scale or in production. That includes the post tool, example modes of > > > startup, schemaless/data-driven etc. > > > > > > Curl is popular enough on Windows as well, through ports or WSL. There > > are > > > tools like Insomnia or Postman too. We should encourage their use, > rather > > > than promote our home grown tool by shipping oob and/or referring to it > > in > > > tutorials. > > > > > > On Tue, 23 May, 2023, 3:26 am David Smiley, <dsmi...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > *If* bin/solr is to subsume bin/post, I think it deserves its own > > issue; > > > > should not be a detail of SOLR-6994 -- "Implement Windows version of > > > > bin/post". Really; wow that'd be sneaky to do something so visible > to > > > > users / documentation under a OS/platform compatibility oriented > title. > > > > > > > > I am strongly not a fan of having bin/solr subsume bin/post. > bin/post > > is > > > > very distinct enough in purpose to remain separate. The stated > > > motivation > > > > seems out of convenience to Solr internal workings, which doesn't > serve > > > the > > > > user's best interests IMO. > > > > > > > > ~ David Smiley > > > > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer > > > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 7:33 AM Eric Pugh < > > > ep...@opensourceconnections.com > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > As part of SOLR-6994 I’m migrating the SimplePostTool to be part of > > > > > bin/solr commands. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We document a number of example use cases: > > > > > > > > > > * JSON file: bin/solr post -url > http://localhost:8983/wizbang/update > > > > > events.json > > > > > * XML files: bin/solr post -url > http://localhost:8983/records/update > > > > > article*.xml > > > > > * CSV file: bin/solr post -url > http://localhost:8983/signals/update > > > > > LATEST-signals.csv > > > > > * Directory of files: bin/solr post -url > > > > > http://localhost:8983/myfiles/update ~/Documents > > > > > * Web crawl: bin/solr post -url > > > > > http://localhost:8983/gettingstarted/update > https://solr.apache.org/ > > > > > -recursive 1 -delay 1 > > > > > * Standard input (stdin): echo '{commit: {}}' | bin/solr post -url > > > > > http://localhost:8983/my_collection/update -type application/json > > -out > > > > > yes -d > > > > > * Data as string: bin/solr post -url > > > > http://localhost:8983/signals/update > > > > > -type text/csv -out yes -d $'id,value\n1,0.47' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The last two, stdin and data as a string, feel rather obscure to > me, > > > and > > > > > I’d like to not port them over to being supported by the bin/solr > > post > > > > tool > > > > > equivalent. Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > Eric > > > > > _______________________ > > > > > Eric Pugh | Founder & CEO | OpenSource Connections, LLC | > > 434.466.1467 > > > | > > > > > http://www.opensourceconnections.com < > > > > > http://www.opensourceconnections.com/> | My Free/Busy < > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/eric-cal> > > > > > Co-Author: Apache Solr Enterprise Search Server, 3rd Ed < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.packtpub.com/big-data-and-business-intelligence/apache-solr-enterprise-search-server-third-edition-raw > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This e-mail and all contents, including attachments, is considered > to > > > be > > > > > Company Confidential unless explicitly stated otherwise, regardless > > of > > > > > whether attachments are marked as such. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
