[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-5228?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13989499#comment-13989499
 ] 

David Smiley commented on SOLR-5228:
------------------------------------

Good point Parvesh!  I wonder if Solr should handle this in a generic sense... 
like if hypothetically there was a special tag like <INCLUDE> that Solr 
auto-removes first things after it reads the XML.  That would enable new uses 
of XInclude where today there is no natural enclosing tag to do so.

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

Reply via email to