Hi
> There's two approaches we could take initially,
Both approaches look fine to me. As long as we expose the right API. I
assume that if we use updatable DV, then we'll have a proper API on
TaxoWrite to update the fields, but otherwise (if we'll only allow updating
during Taxo rewrite) we
Hello Shai,
Thank you for the feedback! I'll try to answer each of the questions.
> will it change the API in non-backward compatible way, or impact faceted
> search performance for the common case?
The new API could overload FacetsConfig.build or provide a new method in
TaxonomyWriter to plug
doh I actually read your email and you said you already checked that -
I'm going to send out one of those "sokolov would like to retract the
previous email" emails. Does GMail even pretend to do that? I don't
know what's going on there! sorry
On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 10:13 AM Michael Sokolov
sorry - META-INF not WEB-INF
On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 10:12 AM Michael Sokolov wrote:
>
> You are probably missing the contents of WEB-INF in your custom jar?
> Roughly speaking the files in there define run-time-bound "services"
> that are looked up by name by the JDK's service-loader API.
>
>
You are probably missing the contents of WEB-INF in your custom jar?
Roughly speaking the files in there define run-time-bound "services"
that are looked up by name by the JDK's service-loader API.
On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 9:33 AM Gus Heck wrote:
>
> Cross posting to lucene on the possibility
Cross posting to lucene on the possibility that folks here are more likely
to add customized lucene to Solr and recognize what I'm stumbling on? (zero
responses on solr list)
Note that the specific test that I happened to copy is not the issue, all
tests are doing this (or at least so many tests
