lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Robert Muir (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (SOLR-5228) Don't require <field> or <dynamicField> be inside of <fields> -- or that <fieldType> be inside of <types>
Date Tue, 10 Sep 2013 00:20:53 GMT


Robert Muir commented on SOLR-5228:

thats the willy-nilly approach I mentioned: I dont like it.

if we are gonna do that, no point in using xml at all, we get no value from it, only horrors.

The problem here is not field/dynamicField elements and "where they can be", the problem is
the fieldType/types elements: they are useless and bring no value. Lets get rid of them.
> Don't require <field> or <dynamicField> be inside of <fields> -- or
that <fieldType> be inside of <types>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: SOLR-5228
>                 URL:
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Schema and Analysis
>            Reporter: Hoss Man
>            Assignee: Hoss Man
> On the solr-user mailing list, Nutan recently mentioned spending days trying to track
down a problem that turned out to be because he had attempted to add a {{<dynamicField
.. />}} that was outside of the {{<fields>}} block in his schema.xml -- Solr was
just silently ignoring it.
> We have made improvements in other areas of config validation by generating statup errors
when tags/attributes are found that are not expected -- but in this case i think we should
just stop expecting/requiring that the {{<fields>}} and {{<types>}} tags will
be used to group these sorts of things.  I think schema.xml parsing should just start ignoring
them and only care about finding the {{<field>}}, {{<dynamicField>}}, and {{<fieldType>}}
tags wherever they may be.
> If people want to keep using them, fine.  If people want to mix fieldTypes and fields
side by side (perhaps specify a fieldType, then list all the fields using it) fine.  I don't
see any value in forcing people to use them, but we definitely shouldn't leave things the
way they are with otherwise perfectly valid field/type declarations being silently ignored.
> ---
> I'll take this on unless i see any objections.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message