You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to solr-user@lucene.apache.org by Jack Park <ja...@topicquests.org> on 2013/10/11 04:10:54 UTC

Question about plug-in update handler failure

I have an "interceptor" which grabs SolrDocument instances in the
update handler chain. It feeds those documents as a JSON string out to
an agent system.

That system has been running fine all the way up to Solr 4.3.1
I have discovered that, as of 4.4 and now 4.5, the very same config
files, agent jar, and test harness shows that no documents are
intercepted, even though the index is built.

I am wondering if I missed something in changes to Solr beyond 4.3.1
which would invalidate my setup.

For the record, earlier trials opened the war and dropped my agent jar
into WEB-INF/lib; most recent trials on all systems leaves the war
intact and drops the agent jar into collection1/lib -- it still works
on 4.3.1, but nothing beyond that.

Many thanks in advance for any thoughts.

Jack

Re: Question about plug-in update handler failure

Posted by Jack Park <ja...@topicquests.org>.
Issue resolved. Not a Solr issue; a really hard to discover missing
library in my installation.

On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Jack Park <ja...@topicquests.org> wrote:
> I have an "interceptor" which grabs SolrDocument instances in the
> update handler chain. It feeds those documents as a JSON string out to
> an agent system.
>
> That system has been running fine all the way up to Solr 4.3.1
> I have discovered that, as of 4.4 and now 4.5, the very same config
> files, agent jar, and test harness shows that no documents are
> intercepted, even though the index is built.
>
> I am wondering if I missed something in changes to Solr beyond 4.3.1
> which would invalidate my setup.
>
> For the record, earlier trials opened the war and dropped my agent jar
> into WEB-INF/lib; most recent trials on all systems leaves the war
> intact and drops the agent jar into collection1/lib -- it still works
> on 4.3.1, but nothing beyond that.
>
> Many thanks in advance for any thoughts.
>
> Jack