Personally I find the second form easier to read. The second level of
nesting in the first example confuses me at first glance.
I don't have a really strong preference here, but I vote for the second form.
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Yonik Seeley <ysee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Does anyone have any thoughts on the current general structure of JSON facets?
> The current general form of a facet command is:
>
> <facet_name> : { <facet_type> : <facet_args> }
>
> For example:
>
> top_authors : { terms : {
> field : author,
> limit : 5,
> }}
>
> One alternative I considered in the past is having the type in the args:
>
> top_authors : {
> type : terms,
> field : author,
> limit : 5
> }
>
> It's a flatter structure... probably better in some ways, but worse in
> other ways.
> Thoughts / preferences?
>
> -Yonik
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Yonik Seeley <ysee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Folks, there's a new JSON Facet API in the just released Solr 5.1
>> (actually, a new facet module under the covers too).
>>
>> It's marked as experimental so we have time to change the API based on
>> your feedback. So let us know what you like, what you would change,
>> what's missing, or any other ideas you may have!
>>
>> I've just started the documentation for the reference guide (on our
>> confluence wiki), so for now the best doc is on my blog:
>>
>> http://yonik.com/json-facet-api/
>> http://yonik.com/solr-facet-functions/
>> http://yonik.com/solr-subfacets/
>>
>> I'll also be hanging out more on the #solr-dev IRC channel on freenode
>> if you want to hit me up there about any development ideas.
>>
>> -Yonik
