I do have that in my config. It's existence doesn't seem to affect this
particular issue. I've tried it with and without.

-Todd

-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan McKinley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 4:36 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Problem implementing a BinaryQueryResponseWriter

do you have handleSelect set to true in solrconfig?

   <requestDispatcher handleSelect="true" >
    ...

if not, it would use a Servlet that is now deprecated....



On Oct 20, 2008, at 4:52 PM, Feak, Todd wrote:

> I found out what's going on.
>
> My test queries from existing Solr (not 1.3.0) that I am using have  
> *2*
> "select" in the URL. http://host:port/select/select?q=foo . Not sure
> why, but that's a separate issue. The result is that it is following a
> codepath that bypasses this decision point, and it falls back on
> something that assumes it will *not* be a BinaryQueryResponseWriter,
> even though it does correctly locate and use my new writer.
>
> The solution was to map /select/select to a new handler.
>
> Not sure if this raises another issue or not, but for me it solves the
> problem. Thanks for the help.
>
> -Todd
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 1:09 PM
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Problem implementing a BinaryQueryResponseWriter
>
> I'd start by having a look at SolrDispatchFilter and put in a debug
> breakpoint at:
>
>               QueryResponseWriter responseWriter =
> core.getQueryResponseWriter(solrReq);
>
> response.setContentType(responseWriter.getContentType(solrReq,
> solrRsp));
>                   if (Method.HEAD != reqMethod) {
>                     if (responseWriter instanceof
> BinaryQueryResponseWriter) {
>                       BinaryQueryResponseWriter binWriter =
> (BinaryQueryResponseWriter) responseWriter;
>                       binWriter.write(response.getOutputStream(),
> solrReq, solrRsp);
>                     } else {
>                       PrintWriter out = response.getWriter();
>                       responseWriter.write(out, solrReq, solrRsp);
>
>                     }
>
>
> On Oct 20, 2008, at 3:59 PM, Feak, Todd wrote:
>
>> Yes.
>>
>> I've gotten it to the point where my class is called, but the wrong
>> method on it is called.
>>
>> -Todd
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Shalin Shekhar Mangar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 12:19 PM
>> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Problem implementing a BinaryQueryResponseWriter
>>
>> Hi Todd,
>>
>> Did you add your response writer in solrconfig.xml?
>>
>> <queryResponseWriter name="xml"
>> class="org.apache.solr.request.XMLResponseWriter" default="true"/>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 9:35 PM, Feak, Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I switched from dev group for this specific question, in case other
>>> users have similar issue.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm implementing my own BinaryQueryResponseWriter. I've implemented
>> the
>>> interface and successfully plugged it into the Solr configuration.
>>> However, the application always calls the Writer method on the
>> interface
>>> instead of the OutputStream method.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So, how does Solr determine *which* one to call? Is there a setting
>>> somewhere I am missing maybe?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For troubleshooting purposes, I am using 1.3.0 release version. If I
>> try
>>> using the BinaryResponseWriter (javabin) as the wt, I get the
>> exception
>>> indicating that Solr is doing the same thing with that writer as
>>> well.
>>> This leads me to believe I am somehow misconfigured, OR this isn't
>>> supported with 1.3.0 release.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Todd
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Regards,
>> Shalin Shekhar Mangar.
>
> --------------------------
> Grant Ingersoll
> Lucene Boot Camp Training Nov. 3-4, 2008, ApacheCon US New Orleans.
> http://www.lucenebootcamp.com
>
>
> Lucene Helpful Hints:
> http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/BasicsOfPerformance
> http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/LuceneFAQ
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Reply via email to