On Jun 26, 2009, at 6:49 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
ext.ignore.und.fl looks like it defaults to "true" instead of "false"
as specified on the Wiki, so metadata is ignored if not defined in the
schema.
Perhaps we should define common metadata fields in the example schema
for a better OOTB experience?
+1 (but this lends itself to separate focused examples rather than a
kitchen sink one)
There should probably be a better way to catch stray attributes...
perhaps a way to specify a dynamic field, so if attribute "foo" is
encountered, and it's not defined in the schema, it will be mapped to
attr_foo.
Seems like just a dynamic "*" mapping would suffice in this case, but
dynamic field pattern would be fine with me too.
naming:
- "fl" originally stood for "field list" in Solr, yet I see it being
used for single fields?
- do we really need to proceed all param names with "ext."?
Yeah, I've commented on the ext.ens.ive parameter names before too.
It's not pretty to have to flatten a set of parameters into a single
namespace though. hl.*, facet.*, v.* (for VelocityResponseWriter)
etc. But...
seems
like it would be nice to actually use the same params when applicable
- for example, both csv and cell could use "literal.myfield=myval".
...yeah, sharing these kinds of things across update handlers would be
nice.
Thoughts?
More than time allows to type them out :)
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
Erik
