On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Matt Warren <mattd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > c) I push it to the unstable branch
> > If you can write some docs for it, that would be wonderful
> Sure, I'd be happy to.
Great
> Just a couple of other things
> - Would it be beneficial for the facet results to be returend with the > query results, in 1 call? I.e. extend QueryResult to have a "Facet" > property, like if has one for "Includes"
Hm, I would rather implement support for calling this lazily and async, that should handle this better.
> - There'a a bug I need to fix with the Range strings. At the moment > you can't mix and match "{" and "[", inclusive and exclusive, because > the Lucene Query Parser fails to parse it. So you can't write "{100 TO > 200]", "{200 TO 300]", which might be useful in certain scenarios. > I'll send a pull-request for this.
It is not a bug, it is logically consistent, and I am fine with {100 to 201}
> > > Just having some wierdness between "[Dx100 TO Dx200]" and "[100 TO > > > 200]", when using Client/Server compared to Embedded mode, 1 works and > > > 1 doesn't!! I think it's to do with where the "Dx" does or doesn't get > > > added by the Client API. But I'm too tired to do much more now!
> > > On Sep 2, 7:42 am, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, any news on this?
> > > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Matt Warren <mattd...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Sorry just got back from 2 weeks holiday, if you can give me > another > > > > > week I can finish it off for you.
> > > > > On Aug 24, 12:28 pm, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote: > > > > > > Matt, did you get the chance to look at this?
> > > > > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Matt Warren <mattd...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Yeah no problem, I should get some time over the next few days
> > > > > > > On Aug 2, 2:21 pm, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Okay, would you be able to complete this and create a pull > > > request?
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Matt Warren < > mattd...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I like that approach and that was similar to what my code > did > > > (but > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > a different reason).
> > > > > > > > > It also fits in with how other libraries handle facets, > i.e. > > > you > > > > > > > > > define the facet fields/ranges up-front and then queries > > > include > > > > > > > > > those. But having the option of doing it dynamically is > also > > > really > > > > > > > > > nice!
> > > > > > > > > On Aug 2, 1:58 pm, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > What if we would split things? > > > > > > > > > > We store the facet definition in a document, then do > > > something > > > > > like:
> > > > > > > > > > GET /facets/CameraFacets
> > > > > > > > > > Where "CameraFacets" gives us the doc name.
> > > > > > > > > > We can then do something like:
> > > > > > > > > > > But this wouldn't fit well with LINQ and it's really > just a > > > > > > > strongly > > > > > > > > > > > typed wrapper over the query string you manually write. > > > Plus it > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > > get even more verbose if the ranges weren't string, but > > > some so > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > class with upper/lower properties.
> > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 31, 2:00 pm, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Some notes on that. > > > > > > > > > > > > * It is probably better to have separate docs for > each > > > index, > > > > > > > rather > > > > > > > > > than > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > single doc for all indexes. > > > > > > > > > > > > * UpdateIndexFacets seems to be doing something > fairly > > > > > strange, > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > seems > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > be saving the default term count there, but I don't > > > really > > > > > > > understand > > > > > > > > > > > why.
> > > > > > > > > > > > You seems to be doing a lot of work that isn't really > > > > > required. .
> > > > > > > > > > > > At any rate, I did some work to get a new version > going, > > > you > > > > > can > > > > > > > see > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > here:https://github.com/ayende/ravendb/tree/facets
> > > > > > > > > > > > Here are the documents data:
> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Matt Warren <mattd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > c) I push it to the unstable branch
> > > If you can write some docs for it, that would be wonderful
> > Sure, I'd be happy to.
> Great
> > Just a couple of other things
> > - Would it be beneficial for the facet results to be returend with the
> > query results, in 1 call? I.e. extend QueryResult to have a "Facet"
> > property, like if has one for "Includes"
> Hm,
> I would rather implement support for calling this lazily and async, that
> should handle this better.
> > - There'a a bug I need to fix with the Range strings. At the moment
> > you can't mix and match "{" and "[", inclusive and exclusive, because
> > the Lucene Query Parser fails to parse it. So you can't write "{100 TO
> > 200]", "{200 TO 300]", which might be useful in certain scenarios.
> > I'll send a pull-request for this.
> It is not a bug, it is logically consistent, and I am fine with {100 to 201}
> > > > Just having some wierdness between "[Dx100 TO Dx200]" and "[100 TO
> > > > 200]", when using Client/Server compared to Embedded mode, 1 works and
> > > > 1 doesn't!! I think it's to do with where the "Dx" does or doesn't get
> > > > added by the Client API. But I'm too tired to do much more now!
> > > > On Sep 2, 7:42 am, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
> > > > > Hi, any news on this?
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Matt Warren <mattd...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > Sorry just got back from 2 weeks holiday, if you can give me
> > another
> > > > > > week I can finish it off for you.
> > > > > > On Aug 24, 12:28 pm, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Matt, did you get the chance to look at this?
> > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Matt Warren <mattd...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > Yeah no problem, I should get some time over the next few days
> > > > > > > > On Aug 2, 2:21 pm, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Okay, would you be able to complete this and create a pull
> > > > request?
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Matt Warren <
> > mattd...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > I like that approach and that was similar to what my code
> > did
> > > > (but
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > a different reason).
> > > > > > > > > > It also fits in with how other libraries handle facets,
> > i.e.
> > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > define the facet fields/ranges up-front and then queries
> > > > include
> > > > > > > > > > those. But having the option of doing it dynamically is
> > also
> > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > nice!
> > > > > > > > > > On Aug 2, 1:58 pm, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > What if we would split things?
> > > > > > > > > > > We store the facet definition in a document, then do
> > > > something
> > > > > > like:
> > > > > > > > > > > GET /facets/CameraFacets
> > > > > > > > > > > Where "CameraFacets" gives us the doc name.
> > > > > > > > > > > We can then do something like:
> > > > > > > > > > > > But this wouldn't fit well with LINQ and it's really
> > just a
> > > > > > > > strongly
> > > > > > > > > > > > typed wrapper over the query string you manually write.
> > > > Plus it
> > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > get even more verbose if the ranges weren't string, but
> > > > some so
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > class with upper/lower properties.
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 31, 2:00 pm, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Some notes on that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > * It is probably better to have separate docs for
> > each
> > > > index,
> > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > single doc for all indexes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > * UpdateIndexFacets seems to be doing something
> > fairly
> > > > > > strange,
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > seems
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > be saving the default term count there, but I don't
> > > > really
> > > > > > > > understand
> > > > > > > > > > > > why.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You seems to be doing a lot of work that isn't really
> > > > > > required. .
> > > > > > > > > > > > > At any rate, I did some work to get a new version
> > going,
> > > > you
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > here:https://github.com/ayende/ravendb/tree/facets
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Here are the documents data:
> It's not linked to from anywhere else on the site at the moment, I > thought you'd want to take a look first.
Notes: a) the size of the image make it harder to see the facets, can you provide a linked larger version? b) the picture and the domain in the sample aren't the same, which may be confusing, could you use a shopping site picture instead? c) the sample facet doc and the sample data do not agree (not Megapixels facet).
Can you talk a bit about how it works and in what situations it would be useful?
> BTW are you happy for me to post a thread on this board about it, so > that it gets some more visibility?
> > On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Matt Warren <mattd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > c) I push it to the unstable branch
> > > > If you can write some docs for it, that would be wonderful
> > > Sure, I'd be happy to.
> > Great
> > > Just a couple of other things
> > > - Would it be beneficial for the facet results to be returend with the > > > query results, in 1 call? I.e. extend QueryResult to have a "Facet" > > > property, like if has one for "Includes"
> > Hm, > > I would rather implement support for calling this lazily and async, that > > should handle this better.
> > > - There'a a bug I need to fix with the Range strings. At the moment > > > you can't mix and match "{" and "[", inclusive and exclusive, because > > > the Lucene Query Parser fails to parse it. So you can't write "{100 TO > > > 200]", "{200 TO 300]", which might be useful in certain scenarios. > > > I'll send a pull-request for this.
> > It is not a bug, it is logically consistent, and I am fine with {100 to > 201}
> > > > > Just having some wierdness between "[Dx100 TO Dx200]" and "[100 TO > > > > > 200]", when using Client/Server compared to Embedded mode, 1 works > and > > > > > 1 doesn't!! I think it's to do with where the "Dx" does or doesn't > get > > > > > added by the Client API. But I'm too tired to do much more now!
> > > > > On Sep 2, 7:42 am, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, any news on this?
> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Matt Warren <mattd...@gmail.com
> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Sorry just got back from 2 weeks holiday, if you can give me > > > another > > > > > > > week I can finish it off for you.
> > > > > > > On Aug 24, 12:28 pm, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Matt, did you get the chance to look at this?
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Matt Warren < > mattd...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Yeah no problem, I should get some time over the next few > days
> > > > > > > > > On Aug 2, 2:21 pm, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Okay, would you be able to complete this and create a > pull > > > > > request?
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Matt Warren < > > > mattd...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I like that approach and that was similar to what my > code > > > did > > > > > (but > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > a different reason).
> > > > > > > > > > > It also fits in with how other libraries handle facets, > > > i.e. > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > define the facet fields/ranges up-front and then > queries > > > > > include > > > > > > > > > > > those. But having the option of doing it dynamically is > > > also > > > > > really > > > > > > > > > > > nice!
> > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 2, 1:58 pm, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > What if we would split things? > > > > > > > > > > > > We store the facet definition in a document, then do > > > > > something > > > > > > > like:
> > > > > > > > > > > > GET /facets/CameraFacets
> > > > > > > > > > > > Where "CameraFacets" gives us the doc name.
> > > > > > > > > > > > We can then do something like:
I've also found some weirdness around the Client/Server mode compared
to Embedded. I'll need to change the unit test because it currently
doesn't catch the problem.
I'll send a pull-request in the next couple of days to fix it as well.
On Sep 5, 6:38 pm, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
> > It's not linked to from anywhere else on the site at the moment, I
> > thought you'd want to take a look first.
> Notes:
> a) the size of the image make it harder to see the facets, can you provide a
> linked larger version?
> b) the picture and the domain in the sample aren't the same, which may be
> confusing, could you use a shopping site picture instead?
> c) the sample facet doc and the sample data do not agree (not Megapixels
> facet).
> Can you talk a bit about how it works and in what situations it would be
> useful?
> > BTW are you happy for me to post a thread on this board about it, so
> > that it gets some more visibility?
> > > On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Matt Warren <mattd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > c) I push it to the unstable branch
> > > > > If you can write some docs for it, that would be wonderful
> > > > Sure, I'd be happy to.
> > > Great
> > > > Just a couple of other things
> > > > - Would it be beneficial for the facet results to be returend with the
> > > > query results, in 1 call? I.e. extend QueryResult to have a "Facet"
> > > > property, like if has one for "Includes"
> > > Hm,
> > > I would rather implement support for calling this lazily and async, that
> > > should handle this better.
> > > > - There'a a bug I need to fix with the Range strings. At the moment
> > > > you can't mix and match "{" and "[", inclusive and exclusive, because
> > > > the Lucene Query Parser fails to parse it. So you can't write "{100 TO
> > > > 200]", "{200 TO 300]", which might be useful in certain scenarios.
> > > > I'll send a pull-request for this.
> > > It is not a bug, it is logically consistent, and I am fine with {100 to
> > 201}
> > > > > On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 3:01 AM, Matt Warren <mattd...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > Yeah, got quite a bit working, see the commits here
> > > > > >https://github.com/mattwarren/ravendb/tree/facets
> > > > > > Currently you can issue URL's like this:
> > > > > > Just having some wierdness between "[Dx100 TO Dx200]" and "[100 TO
> > > > > > 200]", when using Client/Server compared to Embedded mode, 1 works
> > and
> > > > > > 1 doesn't!! I think it's to do with where the "Dx" does or doesn't
> > get
> > > > > > added by the Client API. But I'm too tired to do much more now!
> > > > > > On Sep 2, 7:42 am, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi, any news on this?
> > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Matt Warren <mattd...@gmail.com
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > Sorry just got back from 2 weeks holiday, if you can give me
> > > > another
> > > > > > > > week I can finish it off for you.
> > > > > > > > On Aug 24, 12:28 pm, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Matt, did you get the chance to look at this?
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Matt Warren <
> > mattd...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Yeah no problem, I should get some time over the next few
> > days
> > > > > > > > > > On Aug 2, 2:21 pm, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Okay, would you be able to complete this and create a
> > pull
> > > > > > request?
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Matt Warren <
> > > > mattd...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > I like that approach and that was similar to what my
> > code
> > > > did
> > > > > > (but
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > a different reason).
> > > > > > > > > > > > It also fits in with how other libraries handle facets,
> > > > i.e.
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > define the facet fields/ranges up-front and then
> > queries
> > > > > > include
> > > > > > > > > > > > those. But having the option of doing it dynamically is
> > > > also
> > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > nice!
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 2, 1:58 pm, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > What if we would split things?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > We store the facet definition in a document, then do
> > > > > > something
> > > > > > > > like:
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Matt Warren <mattd...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'll make those changes, no probs.
> I've also found some weirdness around the Client/Server mode compared > to Embedded. I'll need to change the unit test because it currently > doesn't catch the problem.
> I'll send a pull-request in the next couple of days to fix it as well.
> > > It's not linked to from anywhere else on the site at the moment, I > > > thought you'd want to take a look first.
> > Notes: > > a) the size of the image make it harder to see the facets, can you > provide a > > linked larger version? > > b) the picture and the domain in the sample aren't the same, which may be > > confusing, could you use a shopping site picture instead? > > c) the sample facet doc and the sample data do not agree (not Megapixels > > facet).
> > Can you talk a bit about how it works and in what situations it would be > > useful?
> > > BTW are you happy for me to post a thread on this board about it, so > > > that it gets some more visibility?
> > > > On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Matt Warren <mattd...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > c) I push it to the unstable branch
> > > > > > If you can write some docs for it, that would be wonderful
> > > > > Sure, I'd be happy to.
> > > > Great
> > > > > Just a couple of other things
> > > > > - Would it be beneficial for the facet results to be returend with > the > > > > > query results, in 1 call? I.e. extend QueryResult to have a "Facet" > > > > > property, like if has one for "Includes"
> > > > Hm, > > > > I would rather implement support for calling this lazily and async, > that > > > > should handle this better.
> > > > > - There'a a bug I need to fix with the Range strings. At the moment > > > > > you can't mix and match "{" and "[", inclusive and exclusive, > because > > > > > the Lucene Query Parser fails to parse it. So you can't write "{100 > TO > > > > > 200]", "{200 TO 300]", which might be useful in certain scenarios. > > > > > I'll send a pull-request for this.
> > > > It is not a bug, it is logically consistent, and I am fine with {100 > to > > > 201}
> > > > > > On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 3:01 AM, Matt Warren <mattd...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > Just having some wierdness between "[Dx100 TO Dx200]" and "[100 > TO > > > > > > > 200]", when using Client/Server compared to Embedded mode, 1 > works > > > and > > > > > > > 1 doesn't!! I think it's to do with where the "Dx" does or > doesn't > > > get > > > > > > > added by the Client API. But I'm too tired to do much more now!
> > > > > > > On Sep 2, 7:42 am, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, any news on this?
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Matt Warren < > mattd...@gmail.com
> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Sorry just got back from 2 weeks holiday, if you can give > me > > > > > another > > > > > > > > > week I can finish it off for you.
> > > > > > > > > On Aug 24, 12:28 pm, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Matt, did you get the chance to look at this?
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Matt Warren < > > > mattd...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah no problem, I should get some time over the next > few > > > days
> > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 2, 2:21 pm, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Okay, would you be able to complete this and create a > > > pull > > > > > > > request?
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Matt Warren < > > > > > mattd...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like that approach and that was similar to what > my > > > code > > > > > did > > > > > > > (but > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > a different reason).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It also fits in with how other libraries handle > facets, > > > > > i.e. > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > > > define the facet fields/ranges up-front and then > > > queries > > > > > > > include > > > > > > > > > > > > > those. But having the option of doing it > dynamically is > > > > > also > > > > > > > really > > > > > > > > > > > > > nice!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 2, 1:58 pm, Ayende Rahien < > aye...@ayende.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What if we would split things? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We store the facet definition in a document, then > do > > > > > > > something > > > > > > > > > like:
It turned out that the unit tests were broken and were not testing
everything, so I've sent a pull request that fixes this.
Also embedded and client/server work fine as you said, the new test
confirms this. In the next few days I'll send another pull request
that re-enables the "dynamic facets" as per your original code (where
you pass all the facet definitions in the query string) and some tests
for this.
I'll also fix the doc as per your mail further up the thread.
On Sep 5, 6:44 pm, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Matt Warren <mattd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'll make those changes, no probs.
> > I've also found some weirdness around the Client/Server mode compared
> > to Embedded. I'll need to change the unit test because it currently
> > doesn't catch the problem.
> > I'll send a pull-request in the next couple of days to fix it as well.
> > > > It's not linked to from anywhere else on the site at the moment, I
> > > > thought you'd want to take a look first.
> > > Notes:
> > > a) the size of the image make it harder to see the facets, can you
> > provide a
> > > linked larger version?
> > > b) the picture and the domain in the sample aren't the same, which may be
> > > confusing, could you use a shopping site picture instead?
> > > c) the sample facet doc and the sample data do not agree (not Megapixels
> > > facet).
> > > Can you talk a bit about how it works and in what situations it would be
> > > useful?
> > > > BTW are you happy for me to post a thread on this board about it, so
> > > > that it gets some more visibility?
> > > > > On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Matt Warren <mattd...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > c) I push it to the unstable branch
> > > > > > > If you can write some docs for it, that would be wonderful
> > > > > > Sure, I'd be happy to.
> > > > > Great
> > > > > > Just a couple of other things
> > > > > > - Would it be beneficial for the facet results to be returend with
> > the
> > > > > > query results, in 1 call? I.e. extend QueryResult to have a "Facet"
> > > > > > property, like if has one for "Includes"
> > > > > Hm,
> > > > > I would rather implement support for calling this lazily and async,
> > that
> > > > > should handle this better.
> > > > > > - There'a a bug I need to fix with the Range strings. At the moment
> > > > > > you can't mix and match "{" and "[", inclusive and exclusive,
> > because
> > > > > > the Lucene Query Parser fails to parse it. So you can't write "{100
> > TO
> > > > > > 200]", "{200 TO 300]", which might be useful in certain scenarios.
> > > > > > I'll send a pull-request for this.
> > > > > It is not a bug, it is logically consistent, and I am fine with {100
> > to
> > > > 201}
> > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 3:01 AM, Matt Warren <mattd...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > Just having some wierdness between "[Dx100 TO Dx200]" and "[100
> > TO
> > > > > > > > 200]", when using Client/Server compared to Embedded mode, 1
> > works
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > 1 doesn't!! I think it's to do with where the "Dx" does or
> > doesn't
> > > > get
> > > > > > > > added by the Client API. But I'm too tired to do much more now!
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Matt Warren <
> > mattd...@gmail.com
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Sorry just got back from 2 weeks holiday, if you can give
> > me
> > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > > week I can finish it off for you.
> > > > > > > > > > On Aug 24, 12:28 pm, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Matt, did you get the chance to look at this?
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Matt Warren <
> > > > mattd...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah no problem, I should get some time over the next
> > few
> > > > days
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 2, 2:21 pm, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Okay, would you be able to complete this and create a
> > > > pull
> > > > > > > > request?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Matt Warren <
> > > > > > mattd...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like that approach and that was similar to what
> > my
> > > > code
> > > > > > did
> > > > > > > > (but
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a different reason).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It also fits in with how other libraries handle
> > facets,
> > > > > > i.e.
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > define the facet fields/ranges up-front and then
> > > > queries
> > > > > > > > include
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > those. But having the option of doing it
> > dynamically is
> > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > nice!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 2, 1:58 pm, Ayende Rahien <
> > aye...@ayende.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What if we would split things?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We store the facet definition in a document, then
> > do
> > > > > > > > something
> > > > > > > > > > like:
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 1:45 AM, Matt Warren <mattd...@gmail.com> wrote: > It turned out that the unit tests were broken and were not testing > everything, so I've sent a pull request that fixes this.
> Also embedded and client/server work fine as you said, the new test > confirms this. In the next few days I'll send another pull request > that re-enables the "dynamic facets" as per your original code (where > you pass all the facet definitions in the query string) and some tests > for this.
> I'll also fix the doc as per your mail further up the thread.
> > On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Matt Warren <mattd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I'll make those changes, no probs.
> > > I've also found some weirdness around the Client/Server mode compared > > > to Embedded. I'll need to change the unit test because it currently > > > doesn't catch the problem.
> > > I'll send a pull-request in the next couple of days to fix it as well.
> > > > > It's not linked to from anywhere else on the site at the moment, I > > > > > thought you'd want to take a look first.
> > > > Notes: > > > > a) the size of the image make it harder to see the facets, can you > > > provide a > > > > linked larger version? > > > > b) the picture and the domain in the sample aren't the same, which > may be > > > > confusing, could you use a shopping site picture instead? > > > > c) the sample facet doc and the sample data do not agree (not > Megapixels > > > > facet).
> > > > Can you talk a bit about how it works and in what situations it would > be > > > > useful?
> > > > > BTW are you happy for me to post a thread on this board about it, > so > > > > > that it gets some more visibility?
> > > > > > On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Matt Warren <mattd...@gmail.com
> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > c) I push it to the unstable branch
> > > > > > > > If you can write some docs for it, that would be wonderful
> > > > > > > Sure, I'd be happy to.
> > > > > > Great
> > > > > > > Just a couple of other things
> > > > > > > - Would it be beneficial for the facet results to be returend > with > > > the > > > > > > > query results, in 1 call? I.e. extend QueryResult to have a > "Facet" > > > > > > > property, like if has one for "Includes"
> > > > > > Hm, > > > > > > I would rather implement support for calling this lazily and > async, > > > that > > > > > > should handle this better.
> > > > > > > - There'a a bug I need to fix with the Range strings. At the > moment > > > > > > > you can't mix and match "{" and "[", inclusive and exclusive, > > > because > > > > > > > the Lucene Query Parser fails to parse it. So you can't write > "{100 > > > TO > > > > > > > 200]", "{200 TO 300]", which might be useful in certain > scenarios. > > > > > > > I'll send a pull-request for this.
> > > > > > It is not a bug, it is logically consistent, and I am fine with > {100 > > > to > > > > > 201}
> > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 3:01 AM, Matt Warren < > mattd...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > Just having some wierdness between "[Dx100 TO Dx200]" and > "[100 > > > TO > > > > > > > > > 200]", when using Client/Server compared to Embedded mode, > 1 > > > works > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > 1 doesn't!! I think it's to do with where the "Dx" does or > > > doesn't > > > > > get > > > > > > > > > added by the Client API. But I'm too tired to do much more > now!
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Matt Warren < > > > mattd...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry just got back from 2 weeks holiday, if you can > give > > > me > > > > > > > another > > > > > > > > > > > week I can finish it off for you.
> > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 24, 12:28 pm, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Matt, did you get the chance to look at this?
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Matt Warren < > > > > > mattd...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah no problem, I should get some time over the > next > > > few > > > > > days
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 2, 2:21 pm, Ayende Rahien < > aye...@ayende.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Okay, would you be able to complete this and > create a > > > > > pull > > > > > > > > > request?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Matt Warren < > > > > > > > mattd...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like that approach and that was similar to > what > > > my > > > > > code > > > > > > > did > > > > > > > > > (but > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a different reason).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It also fits in with how other libraries handle > > > facets, > > > > > > > i.e. > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > define the facet fields/ranges up-front and > then > > > > > queries > > > > > > > > > include > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those. But having the option of doing it > > > dynamically is > > > > > > > also > > > > > > > > > really > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nice!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 2, 1:58 pm, Ayende Rahien < > > > aye...@ayende.com> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What if we would split things? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We store the facet definition in a document, > then > > > do > > > > > > > > > something > > > > > > > > > > > like:
Thanks, it's based around the suggestion here, I've just put it all
together and added a "Map" function to make iterating over arrays
easier.
I'm thinking of pulling in LINQ-to-Javascript (like this
http://jslinq.codeplex.com/), so that you can write LINQ code inside
the patch script, what do you think?
On Sep 11, 6:49 am, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
> Thanks, very cool.
> Started to look at your advanced patching, looks _very_ nice so far.
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 1:45 AM, Matt Warren <mattd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It turned out that the unit tests were broken and were not testing
> > everything, so I've sent a pull request that fixes this.
> > Also embedded and client/server work fine as you said, the new test
> > confirms this. In the next few days I'll send another pull request
> > that re-enables the "dynamic facets" as per your original code (where
> > you pass all the facet definitions in the query string) and some tests
> > for this.
> > I'll also fix the doc as per your mail further up the thread.
> > > On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Matt Warren <mattd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I'll make those changes, no probs.
> > > > I've also found some weirdness around the Client/Server mode compared
> > > > to Embedded. I'll need to change the unit test because it currently
> > > > doesn't catch the problem.
> > > > I'll send a pull-request in the next couple of days to fix it as well.
> > > > > > It's not linked to from anywhere else on the site at the moment, I
> > > > > > thought you'd want to take a look first.
> > > > > Notes:
> > > > > a) the size of the image make it harder to see the facets, can you
> > > > provide a
> > > > > linked larger version?
> > > > > b) the picture and the domain in the sample aren't the same, which
> > may be
> > > > > confusing, could you use a shopping site picture instead?
> > > > > c) the sample facet doc and the sample data do not agree (not
> > Megapixels
> > > > > facet).
> > > > > Can you talk a bit about how it works and in what situations it would
> > be
> > > > > useful?
> > > > > > BTW are you happy for me to post a thread on this board about it,
> > so
> > > > > > that it gets some more visibility?
> > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Matt Warren <mattd...@gmail.com
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > c) I push it to the unstable branch
> > > > > > > > > If you can write some docs for it, that would be wonderful
> > > > > > > > Sure, I'd be happy to.
> > > > > > > Great
> > > > > > > > Just a couple of other things
> > > > > > > > - Would it be beneficial for the facet results to be returend
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > query results, in 1 call? I.e. extend QueryResult to have a
> > "Facet"
> > > > > > > > property, like if has one for "Includes"
> > > > > > > Hm,
> > > > > > > I would rather implement support for calling this lazily and
> > async,
> > > > that
> > > > > > > should handle this better.
> > > > > > > > - There'a a bug I need to fix with the Range strings. At the
> > moment
> > > > > > > > you can't mix and match "{" and "[", inclusive and exclusive,
> > > > because
> > > > > > > > the Lucene Query Parser fails to parse it. So you can't write
> > "{100
> > > > TO
> > > > > > > > 200]", "{200 TO 300]", which might be useful in certain
> > scenarios.
> > > > > > > > I'll send a pull-request for this.
> > > > > > > It is not a bug, it is logically consistent, and I am fine with
> > {100
> > > > to
> > > > > > 201}
> > > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 3:01 AM, Matt Warren <
> > mattd...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > Just having some wierdness between "[Dx100 TO Dx200]" and
> > "[100
> > > > TO
> > > > > > > > > > 200]", when using Client/Server compared to Embedded mode,
> > 1
> > > > works
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > 1 doesn't!! I think it's to do with where the "Dx" does or
> > > > doesn't
> > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > added by the Client API. But I'm too tired to do much more
> > now!
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Matt Warren <
> > > > mattd...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry just got back from 2 weeks holiday, if you can
> > give
> > > > me
> > > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > > > > week I can finish it off for you.
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 24, 12:28 pm, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Matt, did you get the chance to look at this?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Matt Warren <
> > > > > > mattd...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah no problem, I should get some time over the
> > next
> > > > few
> > > > > > days
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 2, 2:21 pm, Ayende Rahien <
> > aye...@ayende.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Okay, would you be able to complete this and
> > create a
> > > > > > pull
> > > > > > > > > > request?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Matt Warren <
> > > > > > > > mattd...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like that approach and that was similar to
> > what
> > > > my
> > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > did
> > > > > > > > > > (but
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a different reason).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It also fits in with how other libraries handle
> > > > facets,
> > > > > > > > i.e.
> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > define the facet fields/ranges up-front and
> > then
> > > > > > queries
> > > > > > > > > > include
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those. But having the option of doing it
> > > > dynamically is
> > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nice!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 2, 1:58 pm, Ayende Rahien <
> > > > aye...@ayende.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What if we would split things?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We store the facet definition in a document,
> > then
> > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > something
> > > > > > > > > > > > like:
> Thanks, it's based around the suggestion here, I've just put it all
> together and added a "Map" function to make iterating over arrays
> easier.
> I'm thinking of pulling in LINQ-to-Javascript (like thishttp://jslinq.codeplex.com/), so that you can write LINQ code inside
> the patch script, what do you think?
> On Sep 11, 6:49 am, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
> > Thanks, very cool.
> > Started to look at your advanced patching, looks _very_ nice so far.
> > On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 1:45 AM, Matt Warren <mattd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > It turned out that the unit tests were broken and were not testing
> > > everything, so I've sent a pull request that fixes this.
> > > Also embedded and client/server work fine as you said, the new test
> > > confirms this. In the next few days I'll send another pull request
> > > that re-enables the "dynamic facets" as per your original code (where
> > > you pass all the facet definitions in the query string) and some tests
> > > for this.
> > > I'll also fix the doc as per your mail further up the thread.
> > > > On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Matt Warren <mattd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I'll make those changes, no probs.
> > > > > I've also found some weirdness around the Client/Server mode compared
> > > > > to Embedded. I'll need to change the unit test because it currently
> > > > > doesn't catch the problem.
> > > > > I'll send a pull-request in the next couple of days to fix it as well.
> > > > > > > It's not linked to from anywhere else on the site at the moment, I
> > > > > > > thought you'd want to take a look first.
> > > > > > Notes:
> > > > > > a) the size of the image make it harder to see the facets, can you
> > > > > provide a
> > > > > > linked larger version?
> > > > > > b) the picture and the domain in the sample aren't the same, which
> > > may be
> > > > > > confusing, could you use a shopping site picture instead?
> > > > > > c) the sample facet doc and the sample data do not agree (not
> > > Megapixels
> > > > > > facet).
> > > > > > Can you talk a bit about how it works and in what situations it would
> > > be
> > > > > > useful?
> > > > > > > BTW are you happy for me to post a thread on this board about it,
> > > so
> > > > > > > that it gets some more visibility?
> > > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Matt Warren <mattd...@gmail.com
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > c) I push it to the unstable branch
> > > > > > > > > > If you can write some docs for it, that would be wonderful
> > > > > > > > > Sure, I'd be happy to.
> > > > > > > > Great
> > > > > > > > > Just a couple of other things
> > > > > > > > > - Would it be beneficial for the facet results to be returend
> > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > query results, in 1 call? I.e. extend QueryResult to have a
> > > "Facet"
> > > > > > > > > property, like if has one for "Includes"
> > > > > > > > Hm,
> > > > > > > > I would rather implement support for calling this lazily and
> > > async,
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > should handle this better.
> > > > > > > > > - There'a a bug I need to fix with the Range strings. At the
> > > moment
> > > > > > > > > you can't mix and match "{" and "[", inclusive and exclusive,
> > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > the Lucene Query Parser fails to parse it. So you can't write
> > > "{100
> > > > > TO
> > > > > > > > > 200]", "{200 TO 300]", which might be useful in certain
> > > scenarios.
> > > > > > > > > I'll send a pull-request for this.
> > > > > > > > It is not a bug, it is logically consistent, and I am fine with
> > > {100
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > 201}
> > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 3:01 AM, Matt Warren <
> > > mattd...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > Just having some wierdness between "[Dx100 TO Dx200]" and
> > > "[100
> > > > > TO
> > > > > > > > > > > 200]", when using Client/Server compared to Embedded mode,
> > > 1
> > > > > works
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > 1 doesn't!! I think it's to do with where the "Dx" does or
> > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > > added by the Client API. But I'm too tired to do much more
> > > now!
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Matt Warren <mattd...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks, it's based around the suggestion here, I've just put it all > together and added a "Map" function to make iterating over arrays > easier.
> I'm thinking of pulling in LINQ-to-Javascript (like this > http://jslinq.codeplex.com/), so that you can write LINQ code inside > the patch script, what do you think?
> On Sep 11, 6:49 am, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote: > > Thanks, very cool. > > Started to look at your advanced patching, looks _very_ nice so far.
> > On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 1:45 AM, Matt Warren <mattd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > It turned out that the unit tests were broken and were not testing > > > everything, so I've sent a pull request that fixes this.
> > > Also embedded and client/server work fine as you said, the new test > > > confirms this. In the next few days I'll send another pull request > > > that re-enables the "dynamic facets" as per your original code (where > > > you pass all the facet definitions in the query string) and some tests > > > for this.
> > > I'll also fix the doc as per your mail further up the thread.
> > > > On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Matt Warren <mattd...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > I'll make those changes, no probs.
> > > > > I've also found some weirdness around the Client/Server mode > compared > > > > > to Embedded. I'll need to change the unit test because it currently > > > > > doesn't catch the problem.
> > > > > I'll send a pull-request in the next couple of days to fix it as > well.
> > > > > > > It's not linked to from anywhere else on the site at the > moment, I > > > > > > > thought you'd want to take a look first.
> > > > > > Notes: > > > > > > a) the size of the image make it harder to see the facets, can > you > > > > > provide a > > > > > > linked larger version? > > > > > > b) the picture and the domain in the sample aren't the same, > which > > > may be > > > > > > confusing, could you use a shopping site picture instead? > > > > > > c) the sample facet doc and the sample data do not agree (not > > > Megapixels > > > > > > facet).
> > > > > > Can you talk a bit about how it works and in what situations it > would > > > be > > > > > > useful?
> > > > > > > BTW are you happy for me to post a thread on this board about > it, > > > so > > > > > > > that it gets some more visibility?
> > > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Matt Warren < > mattd...@gmail.com
> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > c) I push it to the unstable branch
> > > > > > > > > > If you can write some docs for it, that would be > wonderful
> > > > > > > > > Sure, I'd be happy to.
> > > > > > > > Great
> > > > > > > > > Just a couple of other things
> > > > > > > > > - Would it be beneficial for the facet results to be > returend > > > with > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > query results, in 1 call? I.e. extend QueryResult to have a > > > "Facet" > > > > > > > > > property, like if has one for "Includes"
> > > > > > > > Hm, > > > > > > > > I would rather implement support for calling this lazily and > > > async, > > > > > that > > > > > > > > should handle this better.
> > > > > > > > > - There'a a bug I need to fix with the Range strings. At > the > > > moment > > > > > > > > > you can't mix and match "{" and "[", inclusive and > exclusive, > > > > > because > > > > > > > > > the Lucene Query Parser fails to parse it. So you can't > write > > > "{100 > > > > > TO > > > > > > > > > 200]", "{200 TO 300]", which might be useful in certain > > > scenarios. > > > > > > > > > I'll send a pull-request for this.
> > > > > > > > It is not a bug, it is logically consistent, and I am fine > with > > > {100 > > > > > to > > > > > > > 201}
> > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 3:01 AM, Matt Warren < > > > mattd...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > Just having some wierdness between "[Dx100 TO Dx200]" > and > > > "[100 > > > > > TO > > > > > > > > > > > 200]", when using Client/Server compared to Embedded > mode, > > > 1 > > > > > works > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > 1 doesn't!! I think it's to do with where the "Dx" does > or > > > > > doesn't > > > > > > > get > > > > > > > > > > > added by the Client API. But I'm too tired to do much > more > > > now!
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Matt Warren <mattd...@gmail.com> wrote: > PArt of the reason for this is that it would make a C# client API > easier as we could just convert a LINQ query in "LINQ javascript"
> On Sep 11, 8:26 am, Matt Warren <mattd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks, it's based around the suggestion here, I've just put it all > > together and added a "Map" function to make iterating over arrays > > easier.
> > I'm thinking of pulling in LINQ-to-Javascript (like thishttp:// > jslinq.codeplex.com/), so that you can write LINQ code inside > > the patch script, what do you think?
> > > Thanks, very cool. > > > Started to look at your advanced patching, looks _very_ nice so far.
> > > On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 1:45 AM, Matt Warren <mattd...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > It turned out that the unit tests were broken and were not testing > > > > everything, so I've sent a pull request that fixes this.
> > > > Also embedded and client/server work fine as you said, the new test > > > > confirms this. In the next few days I'll send another pull request > > > > that re-enables the "dynamic facets" as per your original code (where > > > > you pass all the facet definitions in the query string) and some > tests > > > > for this.
> > > > I'll also fix the doc as per your mail further up the thread.
> > > > > On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Matt Warren <mattd...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > I'll make those changes, no probs.
> > > > > > I've also found some weirdness around the Client/Server mode > compared > > > > > > to Embedded. I'll need to change the unit test because it > currently > > > > > > doesn't catch the problem.
> > > > > > I'll send a pull-request in the next couple of days to fix it as > well.
> > > > > > > > It's not linked to from anywhere else on the site at the > moment, I > > > > > > > > thought you'd want to take a look first.
> > > > > > > Notes: > > > > > > > a) the size of the image make it harder to see the facets, can > you > > > > > > provide a > > > > > > > linked larger version? > > > > > > > b) the picture and the domain in the sample aren't the same, > which > > > > may be > > > > > > > confusing, could you use a shopping site picture instead? > > > > > > > c) the sample facet doc and the sample data do not agree (not > > > > Megapixels > > > > > > > facet).
> > > > > > > Can you talk a bit about how it works and in what situations it > would > > > > be > > > > > > > useful?
> > > > > > > > BTW are you happy for me to post a thread on this board about > it, > > > > so > > > > > > > > that it gets some more visibility?
> > > > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Matt Warren < > mattd...@gmail.com
> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > c) I push it to the unstable branch
> > > > > > > > > > > If you can write some docs for it, that would be > wonderful
> > > > > > > > > > Sure, I'd be happy to.
> > > > > > > > > Great
> > > > > > > > > > Just a couple of other things
> > > > > > > > > > - Would it be beneficial for the facet results to be > returend > > > > with > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > query results, in 1 call? I.e. extend QueryResult to have > a > > > > "Facet" > > > > > > > > > > property, like if has one for "Includes"
> > > > > > > > > Hm, > > > > > > > > > I would rather implement support for calling this lazily > and > > > > async, > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > should handle this better.
> > > > > > > > > > - There'a a bug I need to fix with the Range strings. At > the > > > > moment > > > > > > > > > > you can't mix and match "{" and "[", inclusive and > exclusive, > > > > > > because > > > > > > > > > > the Lucene Query Parser fails to parse it. So you can't > write > > > > "{100 > > > > > > TO > > > > > > > > > > 200]", "{200 TO 300]", which might be useful in certain > > > > scenarios. > > > > > > > > > > I'll send a pull-request for this.
> > > > > > > > > It is not a bug, it is logically consistent, and I am fine > with > > > > {100 > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > 201}
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 3:01 AM, Matt Warren < > > > > mattd...@gmail.com
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Matt Warren <mattd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > PArt of the reason for this is that it would make a C# client API
> > easier as we could just convert a LINQ query in "LINQ javascript"
> > On Sep 11, 8:26 am, Matt Warren <mattd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Thanks, it's based around the suggestion here, I've just put it all
> > > together and added a "Map" function to make iterating over arrays
> > > easier.
> > > I'm thinking of pulling in LINQ-to-Javascript (like thishttp://
> > jslinq.codeplex.com/), so that you can write LINQ code inside
> > > the patch script, what do you think?
> > > > Thanks, very cool.
> > > > Started to look at your advanced patching, looks _very_ nice so far.
> > > > On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 1:45 AM, Matt Warren <mattd...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > It turned out that the unit tests were broken and were not testing
> > > > > everything, so I've sent a pull request that fixes this.
> > > > > Also embedded and client/server work fine as you said, the new test
> > > > > confirms this. In the next few days I'll send another pull request
> > > > > that re-enables the "dynamic facets" as per your original code (where
> > > > > you pass all the facet definitions in the query string) and some
> > tests
> > > > > for this.
> > > > > I'll also fix the doc as per your mail further up the thread.
> > > > > > On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Matt Warren <mattd...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > I'll make those changes, no probs.
> > > > > > > I've also found some weirdness around the Client/Server mode
> > compared
> > > > > > > to Embedded. I'll need to change the unit test because it
> > currently
> > > > > > > doesn't catch the problem.
> > > > > > > I'll send a pull-request in the next couple of days to fix it as
> > well.
> > > > > > > > > It's not linked to from anywhere else on the site at the
> > moment, I
> > > > > > > > > thought you'd want to take a look first.
> > > > > > > > Notes:
> > > > > > > > a) the size of the image make it harder to see the facets, can
> > you
> > > > > > > provide a
> > > > > > > > linked larger version?
> > > > > > > > b) the picture and the domain in the sample aren't the same,
> > which
> > > > > may be
> > > > > > > > confusing, could you use a shopping site picture instead?
> > > > > > > > c) the sample facet doc and the sample data do not agree (not
> > > > > Megapixels
> > > > > > > > facet).
> > > > > > > > Can you talk a bit about how it works and in what situations it
> > would
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > useful?
> > > > > > > > > BTW are you happy for me to post a thread on this board about
> > it,
> > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > that it gets some more visibility?
> > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Matt Warren <
> > mattd...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > c) I push it to the unstable branch
> > > > > > > > > > > > If you can write some docs for it, that would be
> > wonderful
> > > > > > > > > > > Sure, I'd be happy to.
> > > > > > > > > > Great
> > > > > > > > > > > Just a couple of other things
> > > > > > > > > > > - Would it be beneficial for the facet results to be
> > returend
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > query results, in 1 call? I.e. extend QueryResult to have
> > a
> > > > > "Facet"
> > > > > > > > > > > property, like if has one for "Includes"
> > > > > > > > > > Hm,
> > > > > > > > > > I would rather implement support for calling this lazily
> > and
> > > > > async,
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > should handle this better.
> > > > > > > > > > > - There'a a bug I need to fix with the Range strings. At
> > the
> > > > > moment
> > > > > > > > > > > you can't mix and match "{" and "[", inclusive and
> > exclusive,
> > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > the Lucene Query Parser fails to parse it. So you can't
> > write
> > > > > "{100
> > > > > > > TO
> > > > > > > > > > > 200]", "{200 TO 300]", which might be useful in certain
> > > > > scenarios.
> > > > > > > > > > > I'll send a pull-request for this.
> > > > > > > > > > It is not a bug, it is logically consistent, and I am fine
> > with
> > > > > {100
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > 201}
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 3:01 AM, Matt Warren <
> > > > > mattd...@gmail.com
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Matt Warren <mattd...@gmail.com> wrote: > I just wanted to check are there any licensing issues using the > following libraries/tools:
> On Sep 11, 8:38 am, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote: > > And that would be the holy grail, yes.
> > On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Matt Warren <mattd...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > PArt of the reason for this is that it would make a C# client API > > > easier as we could just convert a LINQ query in "LINQ javascript"
> > > On Sep 11, 8:26 am, Matt Warren <mattd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Thanks, it's based around the suggestion here, I've just put it all > > > > together and added a "Map" function to make iterating over arrays > > > > easier.
> > > > I'm thinking of pulling in LINQ-to-Javascript (like thishttp:// > > > jslinq.codeplex.com/), so that you can write LINQ code inside > > > > the patch script, what do you think?
> > > > > Thanks, very cool. > > > > > Started to look at your advanced patching, looks _very_ nice so > far.
> > > > > On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 1:45 AM, Matt Warren <mattd...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > It turned out that the unit tests were broken and were not > testing > > > > > > everything, so I've sent a pull request that fixes this.
> > > > > > Also embedded and client/server work fine as you said, the new > test > > > > > > confirms this. In the next few days I'll send another pull > request > > > > > > that re-enables the "dynamic facets" as per your original code > (where > > > > > > you pass all the facet definitions in the query string) and some > > > tests > > > > > > for this.
> > > > > > I'll also fix the doc as per your mail further up the thread.
> > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Matt Warren < > mattd...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I'll make those changes, no probs.
> > > > > > > > I've also found some weirdness around the Client/Server mode > > > compared > > > > > > > > to Embedded. I'll need to change the unit test because it > > > currently > > > > > > > > doesn't catch the problem.
> > > > > > > > I'll send a pull-request in the next couple of days to fix it > as > > > well.
> > > > > > > > > > It's not linked to from anywhere else on the site at the > > > moment, I > > > > > > > > > > thought you'd want to take a look first.
> > > > > > > > > Notes: > > > > > > > > > a) the size of the image make it harder to see the facets, > can > > > you > > > > > > > > provide a > > > > > > > > > linked larger version? > > > > > > > > > b) the picture and the domain in the sample aren't the > same, > > > which > > > > > > may be > > > > > > > > > confusing, could you use a shopping site picture instead? > > > > > > > > > c) the sample facet doc and the sample data do not agree > (not > > > > > > Megapixels > > > > > > > > > facet).
> > > > > > > > > Can you talk a bit about how it works and in what > situations it > > > would > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > useful?
> > > > > > > > > > BTW are you happy for me to post a thread on this board > about > > > it, > > > > > > so > > > > > > > > > > that it gets some more visibility?
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Matt Warren < > > > mattd...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > c) I push it to the unstable branch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can write some docs for it, that would be > > > wonderful
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, I'd be happy to.
> > > > > > > > > > > Great
> > > > > > > > > > > > Just a couple of other things
> > > > > > > > > > > > - Would it be beneficial for the facet results to be > > > returend > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > query results, in 1 call? I.e. extend QueryResult to > have > > > a > > > > > > "Facet" > > > > > > > > > > > > property, like if has one for "Includes"
> > > > > > > > > > > Hm, > > > > > > > > > > > I would rather implement support for calling this > lazily > > > and > > > > > > async, > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > should handle this better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > - There'a a bug I need to fix with the Range strings. > At > > > the > > > > > > moment > > > > > > > > > > > > you can't mix and match "{" and "[", inclusive and > > > exclusive, > > > > > > > > because > > > > > > > > > > > > the Lucene Query Parser fails to parse it. So you > can't > > > write > > > > > > "{100 > > > > > > > > TO > > > > > > > > > > > > 200]", "{200 TO 300]", which might be useful in > certain > > > > > > scenarios. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll send a pull-request for this.
> > > > > > > > > > > It is not a bug, it is logically consistent, and I am > fine > > > with > > > > > > {100 > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > 201}
