It's just decorating an existing resource... adding headers and filter/replace the content. Servlets typically generate their content.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 11:51 AM David Smiley <dsmi...@apache.org> wrote: > Why would that be a filter; doesn't a Servlet make sense? > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 11:23 AM Gus Heck <gus.h...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Found the PR, approved, > > > > Side note: It looks like AdminUIServlet is another candidate for a filter > > since it's manually loading a static html file and then feeding it to the > > out stream ( I think HttpServletResponseWrapper can be used to do the > > version substitution)... > > > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 9:30 AM Gus Heck <gus.h...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > As for next steps, I was planning on heading for creation of filters > > next, > > > so that when a servlet is create it can just be configured with all the > > > same filters. That way the old dispatch filter can continue to do it's > > > thing without requiring all 3 aspects to be migrated to a servlet at > > once. > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 9:27 AM Gus Heck <gus.h...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Absolutely one step at a time. We've seen in the past how an enormous > > >> change is just too hard to work back into the mainline, and I'd hate > to > > put > > >> in the effort only to suffer that fate. Review is always welcome of > > course! > > >> I'll check for that review you requested. I might have missed it. > > >> > > >> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 11:06 PM David Smiley <dsmi...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> Hmm, quite some ideas there :-) > > >>> > > >>> One step at a time, though I'm not sure I agree with the destination > > you > > >>> fantasized about. Would the next step "just" be a matter of > splitting > > >>> out > > >>> the parts of SolrDispatchFilter that are not very filter-y and > > creating a > > >>> SolrServlet from that? Don't need to retain any dubious things > > >>> like excludePatterns or "passthrough". Thinking of Solr 10 here; > more > > >>> freedom to do something different that works but might break <1% of > > users > > >>> for some obscure thing. FWIW I'd be happy to be a code reviewer. I > > >>> tagged > > >>> you for a review on something nearby the other day. > > >>> > > >>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 5:35 PM Gus Heck <gus.h...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > Converting Solr to a servlet, or even a query servlet, an update > > >>> servlet > > >>> > and an admin servlet because those are really very separate > > operations > > >>> has > > >>> > been on my mind for a long time. The overlap among those operations > > is > > >>> all > > >>> > in things like authentication or tracing that should be reusable > > >>> > ServletFilters, is one of those things I have long thought about, > and > > >>> these > > >>> > thoughts are part of why I moved CoreContainer Initialization out > of > > >>> the > > >>> > very bloated SolrDispatchFilter. Having CoreContainer exist before > > any > > >>> > processing code is initialized or invoked was a critical first step > > to > > >>> any > > >>> > disassembly into a series of reusable filters and/or separation of > > >>> > concerns. There's an even more radical possibility of making > > >>> CoreContainer > > >>> > a container (jetty) level resource, and separating the > > >>> update/admin/query > > >>> > bits into entirely distinct web applications... any of which might > > not > > >>> be > > >>> > installed in a particular running jetty. (assuming use sort of > > >>> replication > > >>> > to transfer indexes to installations hosting the query app... ) > > That's > > >>> > pretty radical though, and servletization (TM) and separation of > > >>> concerns > > >>> > come first anyway. > > >>> > > > >>> > My recent web-socket stuff is also a sideways exploration of ways > to > > >>> get a > > >>> > separate thing running inside our code base. Originally, I'd hoped > to > > >>> make > > >>> > it a separate servlet, but we don't have any notion in our code > base > > >>> of how > > >>> > to twiddle/tweak/adjust what's deployed via web.xml. I spent some > > time > > >>> > thinking about the possibility of web-fragment.xml usage, but > there's > > >>> an > > >>> > important tension there with startup time and classpath scanning. > Our > > >>> > classpath is gigantic so I'm loath to unset the > > metadata-complete=true > > >>> > < > > >>> > > > >>> > > > https://github.com/apache/solr/blob/main/solr/webapp/web/WEB-INF/web.xml#L22 > > >>> > > > > >>> > and so it wound up in the module world instead... > > >>> > > > >>> > I hack on things related to this occasionally, but it's a big > project > > >>> that > > >>> > likely will take me a very long time to work through on my own > unless > > >>> I get > > >>> > lucky and find a sponsor that allows me to work on it full time... > > >>> > > > >>> > -Gus > > >>> > > > >>> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 4:51 PM David Smiley <dsmi...@apache.org> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > > >>> > > I suspect the choice of a ServletFilter vs Servlet was done for > > >>> reasons > > >>> > > that might have made sense forever-ago. It has always been > weird. > > >>> Does > > >>> > it > > >>> > > still make sense? Maybe Hossman remembers. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > Why I'm bringing this up: > > >>> > > I heard of HTTP 404 responses coming from a Solr server I run, > but > > >>> didn't > > >>> > > see the request in our Solr logs. It turns out that requests > into > > >>> Solr > > >>> > to > > >>> > > a non-existent core are not logged by Solr. A 404 made sense of > > >>> course, > > >>> > > and that's what happened, so there's no bug but the logging > > >>> situation is > > >>> > > disappointing. By code inspection, I see that SolrDispatchFilter > > >>> will do > > >>> > > the PASSTHROUGH case if it can't find the core. Jetty ultimately > > >>> gets it > > >>> > > (default servlet?) and returns the 404 and HTML in our > > >>> "error404.html". > > >>> > > Furthermore, I have also recently seen error scenarios where Solr > > >>> does > > >>> > > handle the request but doesn't log it *unless* it's a 500 (see > > >>> > > ResponseUtils). Shouldn't we want at least one *Solr* log > message > > >>> for > > >>> > > every request to Solr and no matter the HTTP status? I'm aware > > >>> Jetty has > > >>> > > logs but it's a patchwork between looking at both. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > ~ David Smiley > > >>> > > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer > > >>> > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > -- > > >>> > http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) > > >>> > https://a.co/d/b2sZLD9 (my fantasy fiction book) > > >>> > > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) > > >> https://a.co/d/b2sZLD9 (my fantasy fiction book) > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) > > > https://a.co/d/b2sZLD9 (my fantasy fiction book) > > > > > > > > > -- > > http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) > > https://a.co/d/b2sZLD9 (my fantasy fiction book) > > > -- http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) https://a.co/d/b2sZLD9 (my fantasy fiction book)
