Would both then be supported? I see where it would be easily detectable. And I also assume that this wouldn't break back-compat?
Best Erick On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 6:22 AM, Elran Dvir <elr...@checkpoint.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I am the one that contributed EnumField code to Solr. > There was a long discussion how the integer values of an enum field should > be indicated in the configuration. > It was decided that the integer value wouldn't be written explicitly, but > would be implicitly determined by the value order. > For example: > <enum name="severity"> > <value>Not Available</value> > <value>Low</value> > <value>Medium</value> > <value>High</value> > <value>Critical</value> > </enum> > "Not Available" will get the value 0, "Low" will get 1 and so on. > > I have a use case where this configuration does not meet my needs. > I have an external system that indexes the data. > One field has a closed set of values, the values are sent as integer but > should be represented as String. EnumField is perfect for it. > The problem is that the values are predefined and not order sequentially > (the values were "spaced" for future growth). It looks like this: > <enum name="myField"> > <pair name="a" value="1000"/> > <pair name="b" value="1500"/> > <pair name="c" value="2000"/> > <pair name="d" value="2500"/> > <pair name="e" value="3000"/> > </enum> > > So I think we have to be able to indicate the integer values of an > EnumField in the configuration. > What do you think? > > Thanks. >
