OK, I'll take a crack at it. I thought about the comment that puzzled you below. I think you are right, it would be typical. I don't know why I thought otherwise.
-D -----Original Message----- From: Chris Hostetter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 2:13 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: dynamicField + copyField = dynamicCopyField? : copyField do. Specifically, I'd like to say that any field that matches a : given pattern should be copied to a specific multivalued destination field. ... : Has anything like this been discussed or implemented before? It's been discussed, which prompted a FAQ about it, but no one has had the need/drive to impliment anything beyond what's currently supported... http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FAQ#head-6b1d9dc2c14adecfe6fc5ce86448f15fc84baab 9 http://www.nabble.com/Copy-Field-and-Dynamic-Fields-t1228725.html#a3252483 It would be a fairly cool feature to have though if you're interested in implimenting it. One thing i wasn't clear on in your email though... : file. If a field name matches both a dynamicField and a dynamicCopyField, : then both behaviors should probably occur, although config files will not : typically be written this way. ...why not? Isn't that the most common case? (declaring a dynamicField with the pattern "*_t" and having a dynamicCopyField that writes copies anything matching "*_t" to a generic "text" field). -Hoss
