[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8110?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15148954#comment-15148954
 ] 

Jason Gerlowski commented on SOLR-8110:
---------------------------------------

Personally, I'd be fine with allowing field names to contain periods.  There's 
been some recent work to change the COLLECTION APIs to enforce the identifier 
"recommendations" (see SOLR-8642, SOLR-8308, SOLR-8677).  This recent work 
allows periods in identifiers, because of the existing use-case of the 
".system" collection.

Allowing periods here would keep all identifier recommendation/enforcement 
consistent, which would be nice.

Whether any off-the-beaten-path features break when field names contain periods 
though, I couldn't really speak to.  But something to look into at least.

> Start enforcing field naming recomendations in next X.0 release?
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: SOLR-8110
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8110
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Hoss Man
>
> For a very long time now, Solr has made the following "recommendation" 
> regarding field naming conventions...
> bq. field names should consist of alphanumeric or underscore characters only 
> and not start with a digit.  This is not currently strictly enforced, but 
> other field names will not have first class support from all components and 
> back compatibility is not guaranteed.  ...
> I'm opening this issue to track discussion about if/how we should start 
> enforcing this as a rule instead (instead of just a "recommendation") in our 
> next/future X.0 (ie: major) release.
> The goals of doing so being:
> * simplify some existing code/apis that currently use hueristics to deal with 
> lists of field and produce strange errors when the huerstic fails (example: 
> ReturnFields.add)
> * reduce confusion/pain for new users who might start out unaware of the 
> recommended conventions and then only later encountering a situation where 
> their field names are not supported by some feature and get frustrated 
> because they have to change their schema, reindex, update index/query client 
> expectations, etc...



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to