[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-5228?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Erick Erickson updated SOLR-5228:
---------------------------------
Attachment: SOLR-5228.patch
Decided to work up a patch to see what it would take. Was a little surprised by
some of the work with the schema api, had to modify a few tests:
[~steve_rowe] - if you have a chance, please see if I've done violence to the
managed schema code I changed. There were a few changes both to code and tests.
All:
The "FIELDS" static in IndexSchema.java turns out to be overloaded a bit in
case you're wondering why I took "types" out but left "fields" in. It's used to
put together output packets as well as parse the schema.xml file.
Finally, I just took some of the <fields> and <types> tags out of some of the
stock test files on the theory that would test code more randomly than I would.
For the final patch, I'll take the <fields> and <types> tags out of the stock
distro schema.xml file(s).
Let me know if there are objections, I'll commit next week if not. I hear what
Robert and Tomas are saying, but in this case I don't think the hassle to the
users of enforcing these tag's absence is worth it. And it would be more work
for the devs I think.
> 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: Erick Erickson
> Attachments: 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-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
