alessandrobenedetti commented on pull request #129: URL: https://github.com/apache/solr/pull/129#issuecomment-853779305
I agree it's not the most elegant solution to check on the type instance (but there's plenty in Solr that does that), but I still think that it is an inconsistency. As specified in other comments, the root problem is the StrField type per se: Should we then start a much more complex task i.e. "removal of StrField" to avoid such inconsistencies? We could try doing it in a back-compatible way, but ultimately I think the real issue is that we express text to be untokenized in the index in two ways with no apparent benefit but just inconsistencies? i.e. StrField could be an alias rather than a separate Field Type -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@solr.apache.org
