doc in $response.results)
> >> $doc.name
> >>#end
> >>
> >>
> >> (the docs in the example data have a ‘name’ field)
> >>
> >> This request http://localhost:8983/solr/collection1/select?q=name%
> >> 3Aip*&wt=velocit
<http://localhost:8983/solr/
>> <http://localhost:8983/solr/>
>> collection1/select?q=name:ip*&wt=velocity&v.template=typeahead> results
>> in this response:
>>
>>
>> Belkin Mobile Power Cord for iPod w/ Dock
>> iPod
ayback Black
>
>
> Erik
>
>
> > On Dec 6, 2014, at 2:24 AM, Ryan Yacyshyn
> wrote:
> >
> > Hey Everyone,
> >
> > I'm a little stuck on building a custom query response writer. I want to
> > create a response writer similar to the o
>
> Hey Everyone,
>
> I'm a little stuck on building a custom query response writer. I want to
> create a response writer similar to the one explained in the book, Taming
> Text, on the TypeAheadResponseWriter. I know I need to implement the
> QueryResponseWriter, but I&
Hey Everyone,
I'm a little stuck on building a custom query response writer. I want to
create a response writer similar to the one explained in the book, Taming
Text, on the TypeAheadResponseWriter. I know I need to implement the
QueryResponseWriter, but I'm not sure where to find th
On Jun 15, 2006, at 10:18 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
On 6/15/06, Erik Hatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Having a way to hook into the response writing by leveraging the ever
improving Solr codebase and its utilities rather than copy/pasting
would be a nice way to aim, I think.
It's a double edg
On 6/15/06, Erik Hatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Having a way to hook into the response writing by leveraging the ever
improving Solr codebase and its utilities rather than copy/pasting
would be a nice way to aim, I think.
It's a double edged sword. Making more things public facilitates
reu
lass to be uninstantiable from other packages?
: Having it still final is ok, I believe, but making the constructor
: public would help me write a custom query response writer.
:
: Objections?
No objections from me ... i *think* the reason it's pacakge
protected at
the moment is because the only e
l final is ok, I believe, but making the constructor
: public would help me write a custom query response writer.
:
: Objections?
No objections from me ... i *think* the reason it's pacakge protected at
the moment is because the only expected use for it was to create a
seperate instance during
I believe, but making the constructor
public would help me write a custom query response writer.
Objections?
Or are there alternatives to consider to keep writing XML and
leverage the built-in support such that SchemaField.write() provides?
Thanks,
Erik
10 matches
Mail list logo
