You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucene.apache.org by Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com> on 2013/04/30 17:06:32 UTC
Should we deprecate shareSchema?
It seems like if we're going to named config sets, that we should
deprecate shareSchema. I can imagine rather arcane use cases for
sharing _only_ the schema between various cores, but that seems like a
case adequately handled by named config sets.
I'll open a JIRA if this seems reasonable.
Erick
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Should we deprecate shareSchema?
Posted by Shalin Shekhar Mangar <sh...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>wrote:
> It seems like if we're going to named config sets, that we should
> deprecate shareSchema. I can imagine rather arcane use cases for
> sharing _only_ the schema between various cores, but that seems like a
> case adequately handled by named config sets.
>
> I'll open a JIRA if this seems reasonable.
>
> Erick
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
--
Regards,
Shalin Shekhar Mangar.
Re: Should we deprecate shareSchema?
Posted by Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>.
See SOLR-4779 on the theory that there's enough interest to create a
JIRA and move the discussion there for posterity.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Shawn Heisey <so...@elyograg.org> wrote:
> On 4/30/2013 3:41 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 30, 2013, at 2:16 PM, Jan Høydahl <ja...@cominvent.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> More useful in ZK mode would be a simple way to refer to sharing SOME but
>>> not all files from another config set. So if you want the same schema for 10
>>> different cores, they could say something like this in core properties:
>>> schema=cnf://myConf/schema.xml
>>
>>
>> I don't think that's worth the extra complication myself.
>
>
> +1 from me on Mark's objection. Having shared files in config sets has a
> high "cool" factor, but the more complexity we allow, the more likely that a
> user will be confused when they try to understand Solr's behavior. IMHO we
> already give users plenty of rope that they can use to hang themselves.
>
> The entire idea of config sets offers a lot of flexibility. A user who
> wants the same schema across many different configs would have to re-upload
> all those config sets when they change it, but users with huge numbers of
> configs are likely to have existing automation that they can modify.
>
> One indirect way that a user might have a file shared by multiple config
> sets is to have the shared file be a symlink in the on-disk copy. We need
> to make sure that Solr follows symlinks when uploading config sets, rather
> than store a symlink as a symlink. I have not tried this out to see what
> happens currently.
>
> Thanks,
> Shawn
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Should we deprecate shareSchema?
Posted by Shawn Heisey <so...@elyograg.org>.
On 4/30/2013 3:41 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
> On Apr 30, 2013, at 2:16 PM, Jan Høydahl <ja...@cominvent.com> wrote:
>> More useful in ZK mode would be a simple way to refer to sharing SOME but not all files from another config set. So if you want the same schema for 10 different cores, they could say something like this in core properties: schema=cnf://myConf/schema.xml
>
> I don't think that's worth the extra complication myself.
+1 from me on Mark's objection. Having shared files in config sets has
a high "cool" factor, but the more complexity we allow, the more likely
that a user will be confused when they try to understand Solr's
behavior. IMHO we already give users plenty of rope that they can use
to hang themselves.
The entire idea of config sets offers a lot of flexibility. A user who
wants the same schema across many different configs would have to
re-upload all those config sets when they change it, but users with huge
numbers of configs are likely to have existing automation that they can
modify.
One indirect way that a user might have a file shared by multiple config
sets is to have the shared file be a symlink in the on-disk copy. We
need to make sure that Solr follows symlinks when uploading config sets,
rather than store a symlink as a symlink. I have not tried this out to
see what happens currently.
Thanks,
Shawn
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Should we deprecate shareSchema?
Posted by Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Apr 30, 2013, at 2:16 PM, Jan Høydahl <ja...@cominvent.com> wrote:
> More useful in ZK mode would be a simple way to refer to sharing SOME but not all files from another config set. So if you want the same schema for 10 different cores, they could say something like this in core properties: schema=cnf://myConf/schema.xml
I don't think that's worth the extra complication myself.
- Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Should we deprecate shareSchema?
Posted by Jan Høydahl <ja...@cominvent.com>.
I've never used it myself, so I'm fine with deprecating.
More useful in ZK mode would be a simple way to refer to sharing SOME but not all files from another config set. So if you want the same schema for 10 different cores, they could say something like this in core properties: schema=cnf://myConf/schema.xml
--
Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com
Solr Training - www.solrtraining.com
30. apr. 2013 kl. 17:06 skrev Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>:
> It seems like if we're going to named config sets, that we should
> deprecate shareSchema. I can imagine rather arcane use cases for
> sharing _only_ the schema between various cores, but that seems like a
> case adequately handled by named config sets.
>
> I'll open a JIRA if this seems reasonable.
>
> Erick
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org