We can choose one clean syntax and stick to it . My preference is to have <nodename> <var1>value-1</var1> <var2>value-2</var2> </nodename> because this is the most common way I have seen configuration files instead of. <lst name="nodename"> <str name="var1">value-1</var1> <str name="var2">value-2</var2> </lst>
I guess we must be able to stick to one snytax irrespective of the underlying framework we use because configurations are harder to change after they have been in use for long. I personally believe that a framework should not define the configuration format instead it should enable us to decide on the format. A lot of our users are not java users (let alone spring) . They would prefer to have one conventional format (we are already using it in many places in solrconfig.xml as in mainIndex etc). On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:22 PM, Erik Hatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Personally I'm -0 on this one. Adding another syntax will possibly confuse > users and us doing mailing list support when presented with bits of the > config files. More than one way to do something doesn't seem worthwhile > here. > > While in general I appreciate cleaning up any kind of XML config file syntax > (by eradicating them altogether ;), I don't think we need to put this in > Solr right now given we want Solr 2.0 to be Springified (can you even > imagine how hideous the config will look then?!) > > I'm even close to saying -1 on this, but I don't want to throw that much > weight behind vetoing it - I really do like a cleaner syntax. > > Erik > > On Jul 14, 2008, at 11:44 AM, Shalin Shekhar Mangar wrote: > >> +1 for committing it. >> >> Spring may be a pretty big undertaking for which we are not ready at >> this point in time. This patch should be incorporated in 1.3 so that >> at least the new features can take advantage of the simpler style. I'd >> even go as far as to suggest giving a uniform look to the entire >> solrconfig.xml if possible. >> >> On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 10:03 PM, Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> I could go either way on this.... >>> I agree with Grant that the "right" way to do things is to use >>> Spring... but that is in the future. Noble already has the code, so >>> the issue is to commit now or not. >>> I don't care much about getting an XSD for solrconfig myself, but others >>> may... >>> >>> Anyone else have thoughts on this? >>> -Yonik >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Chris Hostetter >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>> : It is very hard to validate a config purely using an XSD. We have to >>>> : rely on the >>>> : components themselves to do a validation and I guess it is fine. >>>> >>>> agreed .. but it would be nice if (someday) you can at least check that >>>> a >>>> config is syntactically correct without running Solr ... an XSD can help >>>> with that. >>>> >>>> : user every day. According to me the user experience is the most >>>> : important thing. I don't really >>>> : care how many extra lines of code I write to achieve that >>>> >>>> I agree ... i'm just pointing out trade off. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -Hoss >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Shalin Shekhar Mangar. > > -- --Noble Paul
