[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8110?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15170637#comment-15170637
 ] 

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

bq. If we expand the set to include what people may have used in the past 
(dashes, dots, etc), that sort of takes us full circle back to the state of 
things today

That's not quite true. Even if we allow all the characters that've been brought 
up by this JIRA (dashes, dots, underscores), this JIRA would still treat many 
others as invalid: slashes, spaces, unicode characters, most of the number-row 
of your keyboard (!@#$%^&()+), etc.

I doubt there's a ton of people using dollar-signs in their field names, but 
anyone who does will probably see some quirky behavior.  And if we can warn up 
front about that, even for rarely used characters, that might still be valuable.

> 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

Reply via email to