[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-5228?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13944098#comment-13944098
 ] 

Erick Erickson commented on SOLR-5228:
--------------------------------------

Yonik hit it I think. There is no maintenance here after the change to support
both, this isn't at all like the back-compat issues faced in index support
between versions for instance.

I spend more time than I probably should on the user's list, I don't want to 
spend
more of it explaining to people that we made a decision to change this and
caused their existing tools/environment/whatever to blow up.



> Don't require <field> or <dynamicField> be inside of <fields> -- or that 
> <fieldType> be inside of <types>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 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: 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 was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

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

Reply via email to