[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-73?page=comments#action_12454196 ] Mike Klaas commented on SOLR-73: --------------------------------
Walter wrote: > The context required to resolve the ambiguity is a wiki page that I didn't > know existed. Since I didn't know > about it, I tried to figure it out by > reading the code, and then by sending e-mail to the list. In my case, I was > > writing two tiny classes, but the issue would be the same if I was a > non-programmer adding some simple > plug-ins. The context could be changed to be a commented line in the file itself. The more documentation we can put in-file, the easier these files will be to edit. This is irrespective of the issue of full/abbreviated class names > With a full class name, there is no ambiguity. Again, this saves typing at > the cost of requiring an indirection > through some unspecified > documentation. It is not ambiguous, it is just unfamiliar to people not conversant with solr. Similarly, full class names would be unfamiliar to people unconversant with java. The intricacies of schema.xml will be unfamiliar to people unconversant with lucene. These are all different levels of knowledge, and it feels like this is being approached from a "java developer" perspective rather than a "solr user" perspective. That said, it would be easy to include an example of both in the example solrconfig.xml > I saw every customer support e-mail for eight years with Ultraseek, so I'm > pretty familiar with the problems > that search engine admins run into. > One of the things we learned was that documentation doesn't fix an unclear > product. You fix the product > > instead of documenting how to understand it. That seems like an over-simplified view of the situation. Surely that is impractical most of the time. > Requiring users to edit an XML file is a separate issue, but I think it is a > serious problem, especially > > > > because any error messages show up in the > server logs. Editing xml files is an absolute requirement for using Solr today, and I'm not uncomfortable with that. I think that making Solr completely usable for non-techies is a goal perhaps more suited to a utility or tool built on top of Solr. That said, we shouldn't make life difficult for such users if we can help it > schema.xml and solrconfig.xml use CNET-internal class names > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: SOLR-73 > URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-73 > Project: Solr > Issue Type: Bug > Components: search > Reporter: Walter Underwood > > The configuration files in the example directory still use the old > CNET-internal class names, like solr.LRUCache instead of > org.apache.solr.search.LRUCache. This is confusing to new users and should > be fixed before the first release. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
