[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-4083?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13498847#comment-13498847
]
Yonik Seeley commented on SOLR-4083:
------------------------------------
Great to see we're all getting on the same page!
I think it could still make sense to have some per-node persistent state (just
not per-core/shard). Whether we want that to be solr.xml, or start over with
something simpler, I don't know. What would go in there? I imagine that any
config that could be programmatically changed (as opposed to a required start
parameter), and that doesn't make sense to be in ZK (or that the node tells ZK
rather than the other way around). The node ID would be one thing (if we
didn't auto-construct it from host/port). Currently I don't think we have a
place in ZK to store node properties (such as roles, capacity, rack/location,
etc). I'm really just brainstorming here... there doesn't seem to be anything
that we currently need solr.xml for.
Something else I've been thinking about is how to deal with the "conf" under
each core/shard... if multiple shards in a node use the same config, or
multiple collections use the same config, it would be nice not have to repeat
that config or reference inside another core's "conf" directory. We solved
this in ZK by having a "configs" directory and then referencing the config by
name. Perhaps we could do the same thing on the filesystem, but have a
"local_configs" directory that's only used when not in ZK mode (of course there
are Mark's points about only having ZK mode in the future... but even then,
it's nice to have something local to edit to bootstrap ZK with?)
> Deprecate specifying individual <core> information in solr.xml. Possibly
> deprecate solr.xml entirely
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-4083
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-4083
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Schema and Analysis
> Affects Versions: 4.1, 5.0
> Reporter: Erick Erickson
> Assignee: Erick Erickson
>
> Spinoff from SOLR-1306. Having a solr.xml file is limiting and possibly
> unnecessary. We'd gain flexibility by having an "auto-discovery", essentially
> walking the directories and finding all the cores and just loading them.
> Here's an issue to start the discussion of what that would look like. At this
> point the way I'm thinking about it depends on SOLR-1306, which depends on
> SOLR-1028, so the chain is getting kind of long.
> Straw-man proposal:
> 1> system properties can be specified as root paths in the solr tree to start
> discovery.
> 2> the directory walking process will stop going deep (but not wide) in the
> directories whenever a solrcore.properties file is encountered. That file can
> contain any of the properties currently specifiable in a <core> tag. This
> allows, for instance, re-use of a single solrconfig.xml or schema.xml file
> across multiple cores. I really dont want to get into having
> cores-within-cores. While this latter is possible, I don't see any advantage.
> You _can_ have multiple roots and there's _no_ requirement that the cores be
> in the directory immediately below that root they can be arbitrarily deep.
> 3> I'm not quite sure what to do with the various properties in the <cores>
> tag. Perhaps just require these to be system properties?
> 4> Notice the title. Does it still make sense to specify <3> in solr.xml but
> ignore the cores stuff? It seems like so little information will be in
> solr.xml if we take all the <core> tags out that we should just kill it all
> together.
> 5> Not quite sure what this means for _where_ the cores live. Is it
> arbitrary? Anywyere on disk? Why not?
> 6> core swapping/renaming/whatever. Really, this is about how we model
> persist="true" on solr.xml. It's easy if we keep solr.xml and just remove the
> individual core entries. Where to put them?
> 7> _if_ we're supposed to persist core admin operations, it seems like we
> just persist this stuff to the individual solrcore.properties files. Things
> like whether it's loaded, whether its name has changed (1028 allows lazy
> loading).
> 8> This still provide the capability of your own custom
> CoreDescriptorProvider, which you'll have to specify somehow. I'm not quite
> sure where yet.
> solr.xml is really the bootstrap for the whole shootin' match. Removing it
> entirely means we have to specify root directories, zk parameters, whatever
> somehow. What do people think is the best option here? Leave a degenerate
> solr.xml? Require system properties be set for any of these options?
> Currently, the options we'll need are anything (actual or proposed) in the
> <solr> and <cores> tags.
> So, what the first cut at this would be, building on 1306, is a default
> CoreDescriptorProvider that ignored all the <core> entries in solr.xml,
> walked the tree and loaded all the cores found. I claim this is a quick thing
> to PoC assuming SOLR-1306 and I'll try to provide a patch demonstrating it
> over the weekend.
> But mostly, this is a place to start the discussion about what this would
> look like rather than have it get lost in SOLR-1306.
> finally, note that I have no intention of putting any of this into 4.x at
> least until we cut the 4.1/4.0.1 whatever.
> And, of course, until we fully deprecate solr.xml (5.0?) the current behavior
> will be the default.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
