[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-5228?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13944600#comment-13944600
]
Shawn Heisey commented on SOLR-5228:
------------------------------------
I was one in support of removing the old enclosing tags in trunk. I believe
it's a good idea to fail early and loudly when old syntax gets used -- once you
cross the major version boundary, anyway.
I am OK with what I know about Erick's commit - Yonik has a good point
regarding the longevity of existing information on the Internet. I've not
actually looked at the commits, so these statements might be premature:
Perhaps we can simply have 5.0 log a warning. When 5.0 begins the march
towards release and trunk becomes 6.0, we can discuss whether we think it's a
good idea to make it an unrecoverable error.
> Deprecate <fields> and <types> tags in schema.xml
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> 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, 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]
