No, 4x still works without it, so there's nothing really to be done. More an observation that it's possible to be _really_ minimal....
Erick On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Mark Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > I think solr.xml should be required. We already had this functionality for > back compat and it's confusing. > > I don't think there are any benefits to allowing Solr to run without it. > > However, 4.x should still work without - if that has changed, that is a > problem and it should be fixed. Only 5.x should require it. > > - Mark > > On Aug 30, 2013, at 12:42 PM, Erick Erickson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > As an experiment while writing a test, I played around with solr.xml and > defined it this way: > > <solr/> > > > > Starts up and runs just fine in core discovery mode since it defaults to > core discovery mode in the absence of a <cores> tag. Of course all the > defaults are used and you better have core.properties files in the right > place and all that, but... > > > > So does it make sense to officially support a "no solr.xml" option? > Removing solr.xml entirely barfs with "solr.xml does not exist in > /Users/Erick/apache/trunk/solr/example/solr/solr.xml cannot start Solr" and > an empty solr.xml results in an XML parsing error. > > > > I don't have strong feelings either way, but thought I'd throw it out > for people to kick around. > > > > Worth a JIRA? > > > > Erick > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
