[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8110?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15166571#comment-15166571
]
Jason Gerlowski edited comment on SOLR-8110 at 2/25/16 2:09 AM:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Slightly updated patch. Few notes
- still no tests. Wouldn't be hard to add tests for core-creation. As I
mentioned above, adding a test for collection-creation might be tough due to
some quirky/buggy behavior I noticed.
- still haven't touched Schema API. That's my goal for tomorrow.
- right now uses LuceneMatchVersion to determine whether enforcement is done.
Can change that later on if that's the consensus.
was (Author: gerlowskija):
Slightly updated patch. Few notes
- still no tests. I can test core-creation, but as I mentioned in a comment
above, I'm seeing 'quirky' behavior on collection creation.
- still haven't touched Schema API. That's my goal for tomorrow.
- right now uses LuceneMatchVersion to determine whether enforcement is done.
Can change that later on if that's the consensus.
> 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
> Attachments: SOLR-8110.patch, SOLR-8110.patch
>
>
> 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: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
