Personally I'm -0 on this one. Adding another syntax will possibly
confuse users and us doing mailing list support when presented with
bits of the config files. More than one way to do something doesn't
seem worthwhile here.
While in general I appreciate cleaning up any kind of XML config file
syntax (by eradicating them altogether ;), I don't think we need to
put this in Solr right now given we want Solr 2.0 to be Springified
(can you even imagine how hideous the config will look then?!)
I'm even close to saying -1 on this, but I don't want to throw that
much weight behind vetoing it - I really do like a cleaner syntax.
Erik
On Jul 14, 2008, at 11:44 AM, Shalin Shekhar Mangar wrote:
+1 for committing it.
Spring may be a pretty big undertaking for which we are not ready at
this point in time. This patch should be incorporated in 1.3 so that
at least the new features can take advantage of the simpler style. I'd
even go as far as to suggest giving a uniform look to the entire
solrconfig.xml if possible.
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 10:03 PM, Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I could go either way on this....
I agree with Grant that the "right" way to do things is to use
Spring... but that is in the future. Noble already has the code, so
the issue is to commit now or not.
I don't care much about getting an XSD for solrconfig myself, but
others may...
Anyone else have thoughts on this?
-Yonik
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Chris Hostetter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: 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.
agreed .. but it would be nice if (someday) you can at least check
that a
config is syntactically correct without running Solr ... an XSD
can help
with that.
: 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
I agree ... i'm just pointing out trade off.
-Hoss
--
Regards,
Shalin Shekhar Mangar.
