Re: [Solr Wiki] Update of "AnalyzersTokenizersTokenFilters" by YonikSeeley

[Chris Hostetter <ho...@fucit.org>]

: The following page has been changed by YonikSeeley:
: http://wiki.apache.org/solr/AnalyzersTokenizersTokenFilters

: - /!\ :TODO: /!\ Package names are all probably wrong and need fixed

Yonik: don't all the field type and factory classnames in the examples
still need to be changed to "org.apache.solr.something.Foo"  (right now
they are all "solr.Foo") ?

I just wasn't sure if the java package structure was finalized yet, so all
i did initially was a translation from package "solar.*" to "solr.*"


-Hoss

Re: [Solr Wiki] Update of "AnalyzersTokenizersTokenFilters" by YonikSeeley

[Chris Hostetter <ho...@fucit.org>]

: > do we really want/need this backwards compatible searching to be in the
: > product at all ? (going forward)

I think that within CNET, people upgrading can change their schemas --
it's not like it requires reindexing or anything.  If we (CNET) really
want it to be 100% backwards compatible, the internal packaging of "solr"
can include all the legacy class names as stub subclasses of hte new
classnames.

: But the solr -> org.apache.solr.* I think it makes the schema easier to read...
:   class="solr.WhitespaceTokenizerFactory"
: as shorthand for
:   class="org.apache.solr.analysis.WhitespaceTokenizerFactory"
:
: The long form can always be used if one want's to use their own
: classes, or just to be more explicit.

+1 ... as long as it's documented.



-Hoss

Re: [Solr Wiki] Update of "AnalyzersTokenizersTokenFilters" by YonikSeeley

[Yonik Seeley <ys...@gmail.com>]

On 2/13/06, Ian Holsman <li...@holsman.net> wrote:
> do we really want/need this backwards compatible searching to be in the
> product at all ? (going forward)

The solar->solr... I'm not sure.  All the solar references in schemas
& config files should definitely be changed though.

But the solr -> org.apache.solr.* I think it makes the schema easier to read...
  class="solr.WhitespaceTokenizerFactory"
as shorthand for
  class="org.apache.solr.analysis.WhitespaceTokenizerFactory"

The long form can always be used if one want's to use their own
classes, or just to be more explicit.

-Yonik

Re: [Solr Wiki] Update of "AnalyzersTokenizersTokenFilters" by YonikSeeley

[Ian Holsman <li...@holsman.net>]

Chris Hostetter wrote:
> : It's optional... standard packages are searched.
> :
> : The original reason I did that is to support backward compatability
> : with the internal CNET schemas.  Check out the schema of apps/SolrTest
> : - I haven't even had a chance to change the names from solar to solr,
> : but it still works.
> 
> whoa... so you're telling me if I say class="solar.FooField" it first
> looks for "solar.FooField", then for org.apache.solr.schema.FooField ? ...
> I assume this is also true if i just use class="FooField".
> 
> We should definitely document change the example schema and document the
> "backwards compatible searching" in the SchemaXml doc.

do we really want/need this backwards compatible searching to be in the 
product at all ? (going forward)

would it be better to just have this as a setting in a config file 
somewhere?

> -Hoss
> 


--Ian

Re: [Solr Wiki] Update of "AnalyzersTokenizersTokenFilters" by YonikSeeley

[Chris Hostetter <ho...@fucit.org>]

: It's optional... standard packages are searched.
:
: The original reason I did that is to support backward compatability
: with the internal CNET schemas.  Check out the schema of apps/SolrTest
: - I haven't even had a chance to change the names from solar to solr,
: but it still works.

whoa... so you're telling me if I say class="solar.FooField" it first
looks for "solar.FooField", then for org.apache.solr.schema.FooField ? ...
I assume this is also true if i just use class="FooField".

We should definitely document change the example schema and document the
"backwards compatible searching" in the SchemaXml doc.



-Hoss

Re: [Solr Wiki] Update of "AnalyzersTokenizersTokenFilters" by YonikSeeley

[Yonik Seeley <ys...@gmail.com>]

On 2/12/06, Chris Hostetter <ho...@fucit.org> wrote:
> Yonik: don't all the field type and factory classnames in the examples
> still need to be changed to "org.apache.solr.something.Foo"  (right now
> they are all "solr.Foo") ?

It's optional... standard packages are searched.

The original reason I did that is to support backward compatability
with the internal CNET schemas.  Check out the schema of apps/SolrTest
- I haven't even had a chance to change the names from solar to solr,
but it still works.

-Yonik