epugh commented on PR #4177: URL: https://github.com/apache/solr/pull/4177#issuecomment-5645253699
> Not entirely sure whether atomic-syntax should be supported in normal `application/json`, I think it is problematic since we also need to support nested child docs and that gets ambigous. So an explicit `application/vnd.solr.atomic+json` would let Solr know what to expect. But then if you want atomic update of a deeply nested JSON -- well, what to do? Time to namespace the atomic qualifiers to avoid confusion, e.g. `inc` becomes `_inc_`, `set` becomes `_set_` or similar. I think with the V2 we shoudn't be constrained to V1 ideas.. I would extend that to the syntax we use in the payload... If there is a better way of structuring the JSON (or other payloads being sent) then we should do it. Now is the time to make a big change to our indexing patterns. Having said that, this PR ended up starting to be a big job, so that is why it's DRAFT on hold. But I would love any improvements you make to this PR! -- 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. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
