RE: Is "solr.AnalyzerName" expansion supposed to work for Analyzers?

2016-09-11 Thread Uwe Schindler
1, 2016 6:02 AM > To: dev@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: Is "solr.AnalyzerName" expansion supposed to work for > Analyzers? > > I feel the total issue might be somewhat above my current code > understanding, but I would be happy to do the grunt work for the > factor

Re: Is "solr.AnalyzerName" expansion supposed to work for Analyzers?

2016-09-10 Thread Alexandre Rafalovitch
Uwe Schindler [mailto:u...@thetaphi.de] >> Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 6:54 PM >> To: dev@lucene.apache.org >> Subject: RE: Is "solr.AnalyzerName" expansion supposed to work for >> Analyzers? >> >> Let's open an issue to do what I proposed! After that y

RE: Is "solr.AnalyzerName" expansion supposed to work for Analyzers?

2016-09-10 Thread Uwe Schindler
o:u...@thetaphi.de] > Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 6:54 PM > To: dev@lucene.apache.org > Subject: RE: Is "solr.AnalyzerName" expansion supposed to work for > Analyzers? > > Let's open an issue to do what I proposed! After that you could add the > schema editor

RE: Is "solr.AnalyzerName" expansion supposed to work for Analyzers?

2016-09-10 Thread Uwe Schindler
> Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 5:21 PM > To: dev@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: Is "solr.AnalyzerName" expansion supposed to work for > Analyzers? > > On Sat, 10 Sep 2016, at 04:03 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote: > > To add, > > > > the manages sch

Re: Is "solr.AnalyzerName" expansion supposed to work for Analyzers?

2016-09-10 Thread Upayavira
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016, at 04:03 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote: > To add, > > the manages schema really makes it easy to "rewrite". My plan would be: > > - Add a new "type" or "name" attribute to schema.xml, which is contrary > to "class" attribute usage > - When a manages schema is loaded, the resolving

Re: Is "solr.AnalyzerName" expansion supposed to work for Analyzers?

2016-09-10 Thread David Smiley
Thanks for this detailed answer. On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 3:24 AM Uwe Schindler wrote: > Hallo Alexandre, > > > I can't see a reason why it should be different, but: > > > > This works > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This does not: > > >

RE: Is "solr.AnalyzerName" expansion supposed to work for Analyzers?

2016-09-10 Thread Uwe Schindler
3 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > -Original Message- > From: Uwe Schindler [mailto:u...@thetaphi.de] > Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 4:03 PM > To: dev@lucene.apache.org; Alexandre Rafalovitch <arafa...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: Is "solr

Re: Is "solr.AnalyzerName" expansion supposed to work for Analyzers?

2016-09-10 Thread Uwe Schindler
Hi, The registry is there. To get all symbolic names of analyzer components in classpath, use XxxFacrory.availableXxx() static methods. I don't think it makes sense to replace all factories in solr with named SPIs. But I'd suggest to add the type or name attribute to analysis components and

Re: Is "solr.AnalyzerName" expansion supposed to work for Analyzers?

2016-09-10 Thread Alexandre Rafalovitch
Wow Uwe, Thanks for the treatise. That's an interesting discussion, but I wonder if anything changed since? In terms of user-confusion/migration, we now have managed schema and can probably rewrite from 'solr.x' to symbol names on first use. That, of course, requires some sort of registry of

RE: Is "solr.AnalyzerName" expansion supposed to work for Analyzers?

2016-09-10 Thread Uwe Schindler
Hallo Alexandre, > I can't see a reason why it should be different, but: > > This works > > > > > > > This does not: > > > > > This does work again: > > > > > Both LowerCaseTokenizerFactory and SimpleAnalyzer are in

Is "solr.AnalyzerName" expansion supposed to work for Analyzers?

2016-09-09 Thread Alexandre Rafalovitch
I can't see a reason why it should be different, but: This works This does not: This does work again: Both LowerCaseTokenizerFactory and SimpleAnalyzer are in the same package. Is this a bug or some sort of legacy