[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8110?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15171096#comment-15171096
]
Jack Krupansky commented on SOLR-8110:
--------------------------------------
bq. "safe"... "moderate"... "legacy"
My only real nit is that it would be a shame if we couldn't say simply that
people will be safe if they stick to Java identifier rules. That would mean $
and full Unicode.
My point is that it makes learning Solr more intuitive since Java is more of a
commonly-known entity - "Solr field names are Java identifiers", rather than
encumber people with yet another set of rules to learn.
Note that the current Solr code mostly uses
isJavaIdentifierStart/isJavaIdentifierPart today, but disallowing $, probably
due to parameter substitution. IOW, Unicode is there today.
See:
https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/master/solr/core/src/java/org/apache/solr/search/StrParser.java
https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/master/solr/core/src/java/org/apache/solr/search/SolrReturnFields.java
> 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
