lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "ASF subversion and git services (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (SOLR-5228) Deprecate <fields> and <types> tags in schema.xml
Date Thu, 03 Apr 2014 21:51:22 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-5228?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13959289#comment-13959289
] 

ASF subversion and git services commented on SOLR-5228:
-------------------------------------------------------

Commit 1584416 from sarowe@apache.org in branch 'dev/branches/branch_4x'
[ https://svn.apache.org/r1584416 ]

Remove SOLR-5228 from the "New Features" section - its already in the "Other Changes" section
(merged trunk r1584414)

> Deprecate <fields> and <types> tags in schema.xml
> -------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: SOLR-5228
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-5228
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Schema and Analysis
>            Reporter: Hoss Man
>            Assignee: Erick Erickson
>             Fix For: 4.8, 5.0
>
>         Attachments: SOLR-5228.patch, SOLR-5228.patch
>
>
> 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 was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message