Then make it accept two names, and start shipping examples with the new name. Old stuff works, new stuff makes sense.
Upayavira On Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 08:47 PM, Mark Miller wrote: > It is the wrong name - mostly because it came from a single core > solution. We could change it, but you have to pretty carefully > consider how heavily it's embedded out there now. > > - Mark > > On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 1:20 PM Shawn Heisey > <apa...@elyograg.org> wrote: >> On 7/9/2015 10:55 AM, Erick Erickson wrote: >> > coreconfig.xml has it's own problems in SolrCloud, >> > collectionconfig seems better. Except in that case >> > stand-alone Solr doesn't really use collections... >> > >> > Siiggghhh. >> >> I debated with myself on whether I even wanted to bring this up. >> Ultimately I decided it would be interesting to discuss, even if we >> don't take any action. >> >> As potential replacements for solrconfig.xml, I find that core.xml or >> possibly just config.xml are the most appealing ... but the former might >> be confusing in a SolrCloud context. I'm biased towards cores, because >> the Solr indexes that I interact with most often are NOT using >> SolrCloud, and might never use it. I've heard rumblings about SolrCloud >> becoming the *only* running mode, but that hasn't happened so far. >> >> I understand how we got where we are today -- in the early days, Solr >> only handled one index, so the solrconfig.xml actually did configure all >> of Solr. >> >> Thanks, >> Shawn >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >> > -- > - Mark about.me/markrmiller
