Actually even if we do not change the configuration now, if the patch is checked in new handlers can make use of this (or whoever wants to use it). --Noble
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Shalin Shekhar Mangar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. > -- --Noble Paul
