[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-5228?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13942792#comment-13942792
]
Shawn Heisey commented on SOLR-5228:
------------------------------------
The schema version changes how Solr interprets default settings. I'm fairly
sure that it has nothing to do with the XML structure. I don't think we need a
new schema version for this.
+1 to Robert's idea in the first comment. I will restate it below to make sure
I understand it properly:
* Allow <field> and <fieldType> at the top level under <schema>.
* Deprecate <fields> and <types> in 4x. Remove them in trunk. The unknown
tags will fail parsing.
* Don't worry about supporting all options in the deprecated sections.
> Don't require <field> or <dynamicField> be inside of <fields> -- or that
> <fieldType> be inside of <types>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-5228
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-5228
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Schema and Analysis
> Reporter: Hoss Man
> Assignee: Hoss Man
>
> On the solr-user mailing list, Nutan recently mentioned spending days trying
> to track down a problem that turned out to be because he had attempted to add
> a {{<dynamicField .. />}} that was outside of the {{<fields>}} block in his
> schema.xml -- Solr was just silently ignoring it.
> We have made improvements in other areas of config validation by generating
> statup errors when tags/attributes are found that are not expected -- but in
> this case i think we should just stop expecting/requiring that the
> {{<fields>}} and {{<types>}} tags will be used to group these sorts of
> things. I think schema.xml parsing should just start ignoring them and only
> care about finding the {{<field>}}, {{<dynamicField>}}, and {{<fieldType>}}
> tags wherever they may be.
> If people want to keep using them, fine. If people want to mix fieldTypes
> and fields side by side (perhaps specify a fieldType, then list all the
> fields using it) fine. I don't see any value in forcing people to use them,
> but we definitely shouldn't leave things the way they are with otherwise
> perfectly valid field/type declarations being silently ignored.
> ---
> I'll take this on unless i see any objections.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
