On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Marcel Reutegger <[email protected]> wrote:
> the your configuration proposal we'd now have three different
> places where a property can be specified:
>
> - includePropertyNames
> - properties
> - indexRules
>
> would it be possible to unify those definitions into a single one?
yes that needs to be done. This happened because LucenePropertyIndex
work in whitelist mode while Lucene full text index work in more
generic mode where you use some common setting for everything and then
for specific stuff customize it. Hence the need for
'includePropertyNames' to provide the whitelist of property names and
'properties' to capture property specific changes.
So thinking more about it I think its better to use JR config model
and map it to content tree. So the proposed model would be something
like
-----------------------------
"indexRules" : {
//need orderable child nodes to honour
//nodeType hierrachy
"jcr:primaryType": "nt:unstructured",
"nt:unstructured" : {
"properties" :{
"title" : { /* Scoped property */
"boost" : 1.5
}
}
},
"nt:file" : {
"boost" : "2.0",
"condition" : "@priority = 'high'"
},
"app:Asset" : {
"properties": {
"jcr:primaryType":"oak:Unstructured",
//relative property jcr:content/lastModified
"jcr:content": {
"jcr:primaryType":"oak:Unstructured",
"jcr:lastModified": {
"jcr:primaryType":"oak:Unstructured",
"type":"Date"
}
}
},
"nt:base" : {
"properties" :{
//need orderable property nodes
//to support regexp
"jcr:primaryType": "nt:unstructured",
"offTime" : {
"nodeScopeIndex" : false
}
}
}
}
-----------------------------
Above model would super cede current config options
* declaredNodeTypes - This can be computed from the indexRules child node list
* relativeProperties - The relative property names would also be
scoped to there nodeType
* includePorpertyName - A property would be included if it passes any
of the index rules
@Tommaso - I think using nodeType as the node name instead of
arbitrary name would remove redundancy
Given existing config is part of 1.0.8 we would need to support both
but users would not be allowed to mix both approaches.
Thoughts?
Chetan Mehrotra
