Hi, Ah, a convenient thread - I was about to mention that I was able to mistakenly define multiple <tokenizer .../>'s inside a s fieldType's analyzer without getting any kind of an error. The correct thing to do is to definite 1 tokenizer followed by N* (token)filters.
Otis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Simpy -- http://www.simpy.com/ - Tag - Search - Share ----- Original Message ---- From: Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Sent: Friday, March 2, 2007 10:28:31 AM Subject: Re: merely a suggestion: schema.xml validator or better schema validation logging Hi Jed, NullPointerException when adding a document w/o the uniqueKey field is a known bug, and should be fixed shortly. If the actual schema was null, then that was probably some problem parsing the schema. If that's the case, hopefully you saw an exception in the logs on startup? Anyway, I agree that some config errors could be handled in a more user-friendly manner, and it would be nice if config failures could make it to the front-page admin screen or something. -Yonik On 3/2/07, Jed Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > First time user. Not interested in flamewar, just making a suggestion. > > I just got Solr working with my own schema and it was only a little more > mysterious than I expected, having previously dealth with Nutch. Solr is > exactly what I wanted in terms of (theoretical) ease of configurability. > > However, my first try at defining a schema.xml file was tough because my > only feedback for a long time was "NullPointerException" from SolrCore > when I was trying to add content. I deduce what was happening was when > SolrCore tried invoking methods on the schema instance, the schema > instance was null. > > From a design point of view, this could easily be modeled with the > NullObject pattern, and an InvalidSchema object could be substituted as > a default schema object. Method invocations to that schema would > appropriately log why the proper schema failed to validate and substantiate. > > I'd think that since the capacity to define a schema via XML is so > attractively powerful, that providing feedback on bad schemata would > really speed deployment and adoption. It turned out that I had > misspelled the unique key field reference. Silly, but can't be uncommon > for a first time user. > > If there is already a method of pre-validating the schema, noting it on > the wiki would be really helpful. > > So far, that has been my only hangup. This has been so much easier and > appropriate than Nutch I've been gung-ho all week setting this up. Thank > you! > > > Jed >
