On Jul 14, 2008, at 12:25 PM, Noble Paul നോബിള്
नोब्ळ् wrote:
We can choose one clean syntax and stick to it .
-1 to that.... at least in a backwards compatible support kinda way.
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'm totally with you on that. I'm mainly speaking from a support
sanity perspective in my objections to the enhancement.
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.
We could write a converter to go from 1.3 to 2.0, so it certainly
isn't a showstopper to change syntax.
Also keep in mind that folks surely have (*raising my hand*) written
tools to generate/modify the config files in their current form.
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).
Not argument there. Solr needs to move *out* of the configuration
business though, not making it more complicated with multiple syntaxes.
I'm raising my objection to -1 for the updated syntax. Let's make
that a post 1.3 (2.0, is my suggestion) feature.
Let's keep it as-is for now (again, despite my desire for a nicer
format, so kudos to you for implementing an improvement).
Erik
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
