I don't think there is any issue with support if we switch to the new syntax only for the features introduced after 1.2
Personally I really like the cleanliness of the new syntax. On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 9:11 AM, Ryan McKinley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >>> I'm raising my objection to -1 for the updated syntax. Let's make that a >>> post 1.3 (2.0, is my suggestion) feature. >>> >> Users tend to stick to a released version for very long. A lot of >> users (we too) still use Solr 1.2. That means we are going to see this >> syntax for atleast another year after which we will ask the users to >> switch to a new syntax which they have been using for the past 2+ >> years. >> >>> >>> > I don't like <lst name="nodename"> either, but I don't think <nodename> > fixes it. Especially with the backwards compatibility issues > (complications). > > In 2.0 we should have a more considered syntax -- hopefully something > someone could buy a book (if necessary) to understand (spring) > > so I'm -1 on changing the syntax for 1.3 > > ryan > -- Regards, Shalin Shekhar Mangar.
