Hi Hoss. Yes, it's the tricky part when re-structuring configs...
One possible solution is, when you create a new schema, you offer a conversion tool... Other is to define a "version" on the config and depending on the version, the expected structure will be different. I'm sure you know this all, but in terms of benefits, I think it may be a bit more straightforward as the terms will match the class purposes. But of course, if I'm the only one that think this way, it's far away from turning into a priority, so just ignore... Regards, Daniel On 25/6/07 21:43, "Chris Hostetter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > : <filter factory="solr.ReflectionFilterFactory" class="...CJKTokenFilter" /> > : > : I think this way, the config terms are a bit clearer... What do you think? > > in general, do i think it would be better if the <filter> and <tokenizer> > declarations used "factory" as the attribute instead of "class"? ...yes. > > So i think it makes sense to change this now? ... i don't know. > > the backward compatibiily issues are tricky ... not from an implementation > standpoint, but from a clarify standpoint. > > we could always make hte schema.xml parsing code say that <filter> and > <tokenizer> declarations will first be checked for a "factory' attribute, > and if it's found use that class, if it's not found then revert to the > "legacy" behavior of looking for a "class" attribute ... but that means > that as people with existing schemas start to take advantage of newer > factories like the ReflectionFactory, and maybe cut/paste examples > from other configs, they'll start to have a hodgepodge of syntax... > > <filter class="solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory" /> > <filter factory="solr.SomeOtherFilterFactory" blahblah="true" > yadayadaydad="false" numOption="42" /> > <filter class="solr.YetAnotherFilterFactory" /> > <filter factory="solr.ReflectionFilterFactory > class="org.apache.lucene.contrib.FooFilter" /> > <filter class="solr.OneMoreFilterFactory" /> > > ...i don't know that the "clarity" a "factory" attribute would add for new > users would balance out the confusion this might cause to existing users. > > > -Hoss > http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this.
