[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-4910?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13679569#comment-13679569
]
Erick Erickson commented on SOLR-4910:
--------------------------------------
Alan:
Interesting stuff, looks like it would be much more rational, but far more
ambitious than I was thinking. Not to say it shouldn't be carried forward, but
I think it should be a separate issue. And only on the 5.x branch?
I'm thinking we need to split this JIRA into two parts, tactical and strategic.
The solr.xml problem blocks 4.4 IMO, and we might be cutting a 4.4 fairly soon.
This approach feels like it needs some time to bake given how many changes it
makes.
So I've opened up a new JIRA (SOLR-4914) and attached your (renamed) patch.
I'll carry 4910 forward in the short term and we can iterate on 4914 ongoing
for the longer term.
> solr.xml persistence is completely broken
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-4910
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-4910
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 5.0, 4.4
> Reporter: Erick Erickson
> Assignee: Erick Erickson
> Priority: Blocker
> Attachments: SOLR-4910.patch
>
>
> I'm working on SOLR-4862 (persisting a created core doesn't preserve some
> values) and at least compared to 4.3 code, persisting to solr.xml is
> completely broken.
> I learned to hate persistence while working on SOLR-4196 & etc. and I'm glad
> it's going away. I frequently got lost in implicit properties (they're easy
> to persist and shouldn't be), what should/shouldn't be persisted (e.g. the
> translated ${var:default} or the original), and it was a monster, so don't
> think I'm nostalgic for the historical behavior.
> Before I dive back in I want to get some idea whether or not the current
> behavior was intentional or not, I don't want to go back into that junk only
> to undo someone else's work.
> Creating a new core (collection2 in my example) with persistence turned on in
> solr.xml for instance changes the original definition for collection1 (stock
> 4.x as of tonight) from this:
> <core name="collection1" instanceDir="collection1" shard="${shard:}"
> collection="${collection:collection1}" config="${solrconfig:solrconfig.xml}"
> schema="${schema:schema.xml}"
> coreNodeName="${coreNodeName:}"/>
> to this:
> <core loadOnStartup="true" shard="${shard:}" instanceDir="collection1/"
> transient="false" name="collection1" dataDir="data/"
> collection="${collection:collection1}">
> <property name="name" value="collection1"/>
> <property name="config" value="solrconfig.xml"/>
> <property name="solr.core.instanceDir" value="solr/collection1/"/>
> <property name="transient" value="false"/>
> <property name="schema" value="schema.xml"/>
> <property name="loadOnStartup" value="true"/>
> <property name="solr.core.schemaName" value="schema.xml"/>
> <property name="solr.core.name" value="collection1"/>
> <property name="solr.core.dataDir" value="data/"/>
> <property name="instanceDir" value="collection1/"/>
> <property name="solr.core.configName" value="solrconfig.xml"/>
> </core>
> So, there are two questions:
> 1> what is correct for 4.x?
> 2> do we care at all about 5.x?
> As much as I hate to say it, I think that we need to go back to the 4.3
> behavior. It might be as simple as not persisting in the <property> tags
> anything already in the original definition. Not quite sure what to put where
> in the newly-created core though, I suspect that the compact <core + attribs>
> would be best (assuming there's no <property> tag already in the definition.
> I really hate the mix of attributes on the <core> tag and <property> tags,
> wish we had one or the other....
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
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]
