> while i don't disagree with you that it's not the most compact way to > express the configuration, one of the main reasons for going this in route > in the first place was so that (in theory) an XSD could be used to > validate the structure of the solrconfig.xml, because the "variable" It is very hard to validate a config purely using an XSD. We have to rely on the components themselves to do a validation and I guess it is fine.
> aspects of configuring plugins exists only as attribute values and text -- > not as node names or attribute names (like with Map initialized plugins) > > there are still some other places in solrconfig.xml where the XMLB These things are actually quite simple. It should be that way. Even if it is hard to write a component (a one time job) it should not be hard to configure because it is done by every user every day. According to me the user experience is the most important thing. I don't really care how many extra lines of code I write to achieve that Actually the NamedList way of doing this is very simple for the component writer. I get a NamedList and I know how to consume it. (Actually NamedList is my fav DataStructure now). The problem is with the way I express it in XML. If we can simplify that for the user it would be happy too. > > > > -Hoss > > -- --Noble Paul
