[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-5228?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13944738#comment-13944738
]
Erick Erickson commented on SOLR-5228:
--------------------------------------
Why was it committed so quickly? Because I was about to catch a
trans-continental flight.
Not much of a reason, true. We can always un-commit if I've screwed the pooch,
it
hasn't been released yet after all.
Why wasn't it committed to 4x? Because I didn't have time to merge, test,
precommit and
commit before I had to leave and the plane didn't have WiFi. Taking care of
that now. Again,
not much of an excuse although it is a reason.
Why wasn't a deprecated message created? Because I had to leave before being
able to commit the CHANGES.txt following Steve's suggestions, as far as the
CHANGES.txt file is concerned. We can always raise another JIRA about logging
deprecation messages if people feel it is important. Just did that for trunk.
Benson:
I go back and forth on the formal schema idea, but I think that's a separate
issue?
How does that alter this patch?
I'm pretty sure it's been suggested multiple times, but somehow it's never
gotten
any traction. It'd have to deal with any custom components and their parameters,
which might be a challenge.
>From my perspective, I made an attempt to synthesize the comments of people
who had expressed their opinions. I think this is an OK patch, we can always
alter
it before it gets released.
I'm rushed for the next two weeks. I hereby authorize anyone with enough
interest
to roll back, alter, or submit new patches as they see fit. It seems like 6
months is
enough time for people to have commented if they were interested though.
> 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]
