You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to solr-dev@lucene.apache.org by Erik Hatcher <er...@ehatchersolutions.com> on 2007/02/01 22:25:26 UTC
fieldtype -> fieldType
A #code4libber made this comment a moment ago:
"(nitpick) when you finalize the DTD for schema.xml, could you
make fieldtype camel-case like the others. Or make the others lower-
case."
I nixed the thought of a DTD, but it does look funny now that I look
at it. Perhaps we can modify it to be case-insensitive (to keep
backwards compatibility)? Or if it already is case-insensitive we
should make the example schema.xml's to be consistent.
Thoughts?
Erik
Re: fieldtype -> fieldType
Posted by Yonik Seeley <yo...@apache.org>.
On 2/1/07, Erik Hatcher <er...@ehatchersolutions.com> wrote:
> I think camelCase is fine since it'd only require one place to be
> changed instead of others.
Huh... I knew it was inconsistent, but didn't realize that it was only
a single keyword (fieldtype).
-Yonik
Re: fieldtype -> fieldType
Posted by Erik Hatcher <er...@ehatchersolutions.com>.
On Feb 1, 2007, at 4:32 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> On 2/1/07, Erik Hatcher <er...@ehatchersolutions.com> wrote:
>> A #code4libber made this comment a moment ago:
>>
>> "(nitpick) when you finalize the DTD for schema.xml, could you
>> make fieldtype camel-case like the others. Or make the others lower-
>> case."
>>
>> I nixed the thought of a DTD, but it does look funny now that I look
>> at it.
>
> I agree the inconsistency isn't ideal.
> What's your preference... all camel case or all lower?
I think camelCase is fine since it'd only require one place to be
changed instead of others. Doesn't matter to me at all personally...
I'll tinker with schema.xml to tweak it, so as long as the example
schema.xml is solid and consistent I'm happy. And, maybe, just maybe
schema.xml will be generated from a user-interface driven model...
hmmmm.... I'm still on the fence on whether schema.xml should be
generated or generic, or a hybrid somehow.
>> Perhaps we can modify it to be case-insensitive (to keep
>> backwards compatibility)? Or if it already is case-insensitive we
>> should make the example schema.xml's to be consistent.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> It is case sensitive, but it shouldn't be too hard to make things
> consistent and keep back compatiblity, and performance doesn't matter
> since it's parsing at startup. Then we should erase every trace of
> the old style in the docs and example.
+1
Erik
Re: fieldtype -> fieldType
Posted by Yonik Seeley <yo...@apache.org>.
On 2/1/07, Erik Hatcher <er...@ehatchersolutions.com> wrote:
> A #code4libber made this comment a moment ago:
>
> "(nitpick) when you finalize the DTD for schema.xml, could you
> make fieldtype camel-case like the others. Or make the others lower-
> case."
>
> I nixed the thought of a DTD, but it does look funny now that I look
> at it.
I agree the inconsistency isn't ideal.
What's your preference... all camel case or all lower?
> Perhaps we can modify it to be case-insensitive (to keep
> backwards compatibility)? Or if it already is case-insensitive we
> should make the example schema.xml's to be consistent.
>
> Thoughts?
It is case sensitive, but it shouldn't be too hard to make things
consistent and keep back compatiblity, and performance doesn't matter
since it's parsing at startup. Then we should erase every trace of
the old style in the docs and example.
-Yonik