On 5/10/07, Brian Whitman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On May 10, 2007, at 2:30 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
> Questions like these are whiy I'm glad Solr currently keeps it
> simple and
> makes people deal in absolutes .. less room for confusion :)
I get all that, thanks for the great explanation.
I imagine most of my problems can be solved with a custom field
analyzer (converting other date strings to 8601 during indexing) and
then XSL on the select?q= end (which we do anyway.) In other words,
leaving core solr absolute with an option for different date
analyzers. I see the need to not clutter it up, especially at this
stage.
What would, say, a filter that converted unix timestamps to 8601
before indexing as a solr.DateField look like? Is that a custom
filter, or a tokenizer?
That would be a custom filter.... which is currently only supported by
text fields, so the XML output would be <str> instead of <date> (if
that matters to you).
One could also just store seconds or milliseconds in an int or long
field. That's fine for small devel teams, but not ideal since it's a
bit less expressive.
The right approach for more flexible date parsing is probably to add
more functionality to the date field and configure via optional
attributes.
-Yonik
