[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-5228?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13989565#comment-13989565
]
Shawn Heisey commented on SOLR-5228:
------------------------------------
bq. I wonder if Solr should handle this in a generic sense... like if
hypothetically there was a special tag like <INCLUDE> that Solr auto-removes
first things after it reads the XML. That would enable new uses of XInclude
where today there is no natural enclosing tag to do so.
I *really* like this idea. If the issue doesn't show up in the next few hours
(and hasn't been filed already), I'll go ahead and file it. My solrconfig.xml
is almost entirely xinclude tags. I would have used all xinclude tags, but the
admin, analysis, and jmx handlers didn't make much sense to put into individual
xml files, and I couldn't put them in an xml file together. Also, I have
entirely too many includes, I'd like to be able to combine some of them
together.
I've never touched xml/xpath parsing ... does the parser support an easy way of
moving tags up a level in the structure? If we can convert XML to a NamedList,
I would expect that to be pretty easy.
> 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
> Fix For: 4.8, 5.0
>
> 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]
