On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 1:27 PM Chris Hostetter <[email protected]> wrote:
> > What if we take a step back, and start focusing more on using SPI for > "finding" and registering more plugins? +1 for SPI for its own sake... > Not just in terms of finding > plugins "by name" but also finding *implicit* plugins "by type" ... but I don't get the relationship between SPI and what you describe... > At which "FooBarBazRequestHandler" could live in it's own module but > could *ALSO* be implicit if that module is loaded at run-time. > > So solr could say "The recommended SOLR_MODULES are xml,csv,json,..." and > if you load those then ever collection will implicitly have > request handlers like /update/xml, /update/csv, update/json (and their > underlying ContentStreamLoaders for /update) and response writers like > wt=xml, wt=csv, wt=json. Maybe what you're implying is that our plugins should be extremely compartmentalized/modularized so that each and every one becomes a JAR/module that can be included/excluded? Every handler gets its own JAR? Sounds like crazy talk but one thing I would like about that approach is being able to attribute CVEs more precisely to certain JARs. Everyone who chooses not to use security plugins (which is most people) thus doesn't get ding'ed by CVE scanners. ~ David
