[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-3619?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13414534#comment-13414534
]
Mark Miller commented on SOLR-3619:
-----------------------------------
bq. So in calling it example (or template or skeleton or whaterver) gives
people a hint that it's not anything that they should expect to be sufficient
for their need without some more tuning (Solr is not GSA..)
I think that is exactly what you want to avoid - the feeling that you cannot
get anywhere without tuning. You should have a relatively good experience
without tuning when you first start - that's how people like software to work -
really easy to get into, and then really easy to tune as you need. That comes
down to documentation.
I really don't think it helps to try and club someone up front and say, no, you
must figure it out all up front. That is when someone looks for something
easier. Everything should work the best it can without tuning. Then good
documentation and crazy customizability work in your favor. Lots of people
don't clean up all the stuff in schema.xml and make their own. They add a few
fields. The remove a few things. Some pare it down to just what they need. If
initial building and testing you do works with the example schema and few or no
tweaks, great! You can pare it down later when you have learned more over time.
I think that's how most people try and come at things anyhow - try and get the
existing stuff up and improve and tweak as they learn more. We should make that
easier and more intuitive. There is no reason Solr should not be as good as GSA
out of the box (though Solr not having crawlers makes that an odd comparison).
Easy out of the box and super configurable/tunable is way better than hard out
of the box and super configurable/tunable.
I also think you can do way more with Solr out of the box than you might think!
Either using dynamic field defs or adding just a field or three. Have you ever
seen Hossmans out of the box talks? They are fantastic. I think enough is
configured right out of the box that there are a variety of paths you can take
to really quick cool setups.
For people that can get away with just a few teaks to what we ship, should we
really be trying to send the message that you really need to treat all these
huge xml files as an example, and actually, you need to figure out how to
create new ones for your use case?
I think that rather than trying to put the burden on the user right away (don't
think this is gonna be easy buster!), we should be making the initial
experience liquid smooth and as hassle free as possible and maintain all of the
options and configurability so that as they learn Solr they are able to take it
in whatever direction they need.
> Rename 'example' dir to 'server'
> --------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-3619
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-3619
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Mark Miller
> Assignee: Mark Miller
> Fix For: 4.0, 5.0
>
> Attachments: SOLR-3619.patch, server-name-layout.png
>
>
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
