MarkLogic : Design question on search.search Vs CTS APIs
MarkLogic version 9.0-6
Our team creates a bunch of custom REST APIs (v1/resources/...) and expose them as enterprise services to other stakeholders, who do not need to know anything about MarkLogic. However, our team is responsible for creating, enhancing and maintaining the server-side scripting (we use JavaScript) within MarkLogic.
While creating custom REST APIs, our current design is to use search.search API to meet any search requirements. Lately, I am inclining more towards using the more flexible and faster CTS functions as I do not see any specific advantages of using search.search wrapper API. As my team's job is primarily to code and maintain server side scripts, I think its better to use the low level APIs (CTS functions) that offer greater flexibility and speed, than investing time on making the high level APIs (search.search or jsearch) work, or even worse, re-code to CTS functions later in the future because a specific complex functionality cannot be achieved through high level APIs.
Design gurus, please suggest!
marklogic-9 marklogic-dhf
asked Nov 22 '18 at 17:07
BhanuBhanu
1857
add a comment |
MarkLogic version 9.0-6
Our team creates a bunch of custom REST APIs (v1/resources/...) and expose them as enterprise services to other stakeholders, who do not need to know anything about MarkLogic. However, our team is responsible for creating, enhancing and maintaining the server-side scripting (we use JavaScript) within MarkLogic.
While creating custom REST APIs, our current design is to use search.search API to meet any search requirements. Lately, I am inclining more towards using the more flexible and faster CTS functions as I do not see any specific advantages of using search.search wrapper API. As my team's job is primarily to code and maintain server side scripts, I think its better to use the low level APIs (CTS functions) that offer greater flexibility and speed, than investing time on making the high level APIs (search.search or jsearch) work, or even worse, re-code to CTS functions later in the future because a specific complex functionality cannot be achieved through high level APIs.
Design gurus, please suggest!
marklogic-9 marklogic-dhf
asked Nov 22 '18 at 17:07
BhanuBhanu
1857
add a comment |
MarkLogic version 9.0-6
Our team creates a bunch of custom REST APIs (v1/resources/...) and expose them as enterprise services to other stakeholders, who do not need to know anything about MarkLogic. However, our team is responsible for creating, enhancing and maintaining the server-side scripting (we use JavaScript) within MarkLogic.
While creating custom REST APIs, our current design is to use search.search API to meet any search requirements. Lately, I am inclining more towards using the more flexible and faster CTS functions as I do not see any specific advantages of using search.search wrapper API. As my team's job is primarily to code and maintain server side scripts, I think its better to use the low level APIs (CTS functions) that offer greater flexibility and speed, than investing time on making the high level APIs (search.search or jsearch) work, or even worse, re-code to CTS functions later in the future because a specific complex functionality cannot be achieved through high level APIs.
Design gurus, please suggest!
marklogic-9 marklogic-dhf
asked Nov 22 '18 at 17:07
BhanuBhanu
1857
MarkLogic version 9.0-6
Our team creates a bunch of custom REST APIs (v1/resources/...) and expose them as enterprise services to other stakeholders, who do not need to know anything about MarkLogic. However, our team is responsible for creating, enhancing and maintaining the server-side scripting (we use JavaScript) within MarkLogic.
While creating custom REST APIs, our current design is to use search.search API to meet any search requirements. Lately, I am inclining more towards using the more flexible and faster CTS functions as I do not see any specific advantages of using search.search wrapper API. As my team's job is primarily to code and maintain server side scripts, I think its better to use the low level APIs (CTS functions) that offer greater flexibility and speed, than investing time on making the high level APIs (search.search or jsearch) work, or even worse, re-code to CTS functions later in the future because a specific complex functionality cannot be achieved through high level APIs.
Design gurus, please suggest!
marklogic-9 marklogic-dhf
marklogic-9 marklogic-dhf
asked Nov 22 '18 at 17:07
BhanuBhanu
1857
asked Nov 22 '18 at 17:07
BhanuBhanu
1857
asked Nov 22 '18 at 17:07
BhanuBhanu
1857
asked Nov 22 '18 at 17:07
BhanuBhanu
1857
asked Nov 22 '18 at 17:07
BhanuBhanu
1857
1857
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
JSearch, Search API, Optic API, all very good tools, developed and maintained by the MarkLogic Core Engineering team. I'd think long and hard before putting them aside. Whether that is wise in your case, that might depend. Maybe you overlooked functions that would be of great help to you. For instance, some limitations with Search API can be overcome by using search.parse() and search.resolve() instead of search.search(). Using CTS directly is not a bad practice, but you could easily end up re-inventing the wheel.
Ask specific questions, and share specific pieces of code with relevant questions to get specific answers. This forum is not really suited for open questions like these, as they often don't have a straight and clear answer.
HTH!
answered Nov 22 '18 at 19:37
grtjngrtjn
15.9k11931
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53435607%2fmarklogic-design-question-on-search-search-vs-cts-apis%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
JSearch, Search API, Optic API, all very good tools, developed and maintained by the MarkLogic Core Engineering team. I'd think long and hard before putting them aside. Whether that is wise in your case, that might depend. Maybe you overlooked functions that would be of great help to you. For instance, some limitations with Search API can be overcome by using search.parse() and search.resolve() instead of search.search(). Using CTS directly is not a bad practice, but you could easily end up re-inventing the wheel.
Ask specific questions, and share specific pieces of code with relevant questions to get specific answers. This forum is not really suited for open questions like these, as they often don't have a straight and clear answer.
HTH!
answered Nov 22 '18 at 19:37
grtjngrtjn
15.9k11931
add a comment |
JSearch, Search API, Optic API, all very good tools, developed and maintained by the MarkLogic Core Engineering team. I'd think long and hard before putting them aside. Whether that is wise in your case, that might depend. Maybe you overlooked functions that would be of great help to you. For instance, some limitations with Search API can be overcome by using search.parse() and search.resolve() instead of search.search(). Using CTS directly is not a bad practice, but you could easily end up re-inventing the wheel.
Ask specific questions, and share specific pieces of code with relevant questions to get specific answers. This forum is not really suited for open questions like these, as they often don't have a straight and clear answer.
HTH!
answered Nov 22 '18 at 19:37
grtjngrtjn
15.9k11931
add a comment |
JSearch, Search API, Optic API, all very good tools, developed and maintained by the MarkLogic Core Engineering team. I'd think long and hard before putting them aside. Whether that is wise in your case, that might depend. Maybe you overlooked functions that would be of great help to you. For instance, some limitations with Search API can be overcome by using search.parse() and search.resolve() instead of search.search(). Using CTS directly is not a bad practice, but you could easily end up re-inventing the wheel.
Ask specific questions, and share specific pieces of code with relevant questions to get specific answers. This forum is not really suited for open questions like these, as they often don't have a straight and clear answer.
HTH!
answered Nov 22 '18 at 19:37
grtjngrtjn
15.9k11931
JSearch, Search API, Optic API, all very good tools, developed and maintained by the MarkLogic Core Engineering team. I'd think long and hard before putting them aside. Whether that is wise in your case, that might depend. Maybe you overlooked functions that would be of great help to you. For instance, some limitations with Search API can be overcome by using search.parse() and search.resolve() instead of search.search(). Using CTS directly is not a bad practice, but you could easily end up re-inventing the wheel.
Ask specific questions, and share specific pieces of code with relevant questions to get specific answers. This forum is not really suited for open questions like these, as they often don't have a straight and clear answer.
HTH!
answered Nov 22 '18 at 19:37
grtjngrtjn
15.9k11931
answered Nov 22 '18 at 19:37
grtjngrtjn
15.9k11931
answered Nov 22 '18 at 19:37
grtjngrtjn
15.9k11931
answered Nov 22 '18 at 19:37
grtjngrtjn
15.9k11931
15.9k11931
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53435607%2fmarklogic-design-question-on-search-search-vs-cts-apis%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
