[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-5228?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13944292#comment-13944292
]
Erick Erickson edited comment on SOLR-5228 at 3/23/14 1:44 AM:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm, I guess the discussion has been about whether it makes sense to ever pull
out the old-style /schema/fields or /schema/types sections. Deprecating them is
certainly reasonable, but I'd balk at dis-allowing them. Your suggestion
doesn't dis-allow them though.
Thinking about it some more, my patch allows definitions like
{code}
<fieldType>
<field>...</field>
</fieldType>
{code}
or
{code}
<field>
<fieldType>...</fieldType>
</field>
{code}
or, for that matter, something like
{code}
<copyField>
<fieldType>
<field>...</field>
</fieldType>
</copyField>
{code}
to be defined in schema.xml. Blech. I haven't a clue how Solr would behave in
these cases...... and there's always case N+1.
Looks like I'm talking myself into adopting your suggestion.
was (Author: erickerickson):
Hmm, I guess the discussion has been about whether it makes sense to ever pull
out the old-style /schema/fields or /schema/types sections. Deprecating them is
certainly reasonable, but I'd balk at dis-allowing them. Your suggestion
doesn't dis-allow them though.
Thinking about it some more, my patch allows definitions like
<fieldType>
<field>...</field>
</fieldType>
or
<field>
<fieldType>...</fieldType>
</field>
or, for that matter, something like
<copyField>
<fieldType>
<field>...</field>
</fieldType>
</copyField>
to be defined in schema.xml. Blech. I haven't a clue how Solr would behave in
these cases...... and there's always case N+1.
Looks like I'm talking myself into adopting your suggestion.
> 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: Erick Erickson
> Attachments: SOLR-5228.patch
>
>
> 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]
