lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Hoss Man (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (SOLR-2724) Deprecate defaultSearchField and defaultOperator defined in schema.xml
Date Thu, 14 Jun 2012 20:36:42 GMT


Hoss Man commented on SOLR-2724:

David: looking back at the mailing list ~ 28/Mar/12 it's not clear what exactly was the problem
that required reverting at the time ... where the test failures even caused by this specific
issue, or something else that you committed right around the same time?

Given that we've already created the 4x branch and started pushing towards Alpha, i would
at least move forward with making sure trunk & 4x are on parity with 3.6 in terms of the
changes to the example and the log/error messages.

Depending on what the issue was with the tests we can figure out how we want to move forward
from there.

bq. I take issue with the Yonik's comment "we're not really gaining anything with this change".
... I don't think defaultSearchField & defaultOperator have a need to exist, let alone
exist in schema.xml, thereby creating unnecessary complexity in understanding the product
– albeit in a small way.

I think the question is "if we stop promoting them in the example, and start encouraging an
alternative instead, what is gained by actually removing the support in the code for existing
users who already have them in the config and upgrade?"

It's one thing to say in CHANGES.txt "we've removed feature X because doing so allowed us
(add feature|fix bug) Y, so if you used X in the past now you have to use Z instead"  but
there is no "Y" in this case (that i see) ... we're just telling people "we've removed X because
we think Z is better, so if you used X in the past now you have to use Z instead".

You may feel it's a complexity for new users to understand why these things are in schema.xml
-- which is fine, but isn't removing from the example schema.xml enough to addresses?  What
is the value gained in removing the ability to use it for existing users who already understand
it?  This is the crux of my suggestion way, way, WAY back in this issue about why i didn't/don't
think there was a strong motivation to remove support completely in 4x - an opinion echoed
by Yonik & Erick.

As evidence from recent mailing list comments by folks like Bernd & Rohit, there is already
clearly confusion for existing users just by removing these from the example -- let alone
removing support for it from the code.
> Deprecate defaultSearchField and defaultOperator defined in schema.xml
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: SOLR-2724
>                 URL:
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Schema and Analysis, search
>            Reporter: David Smiley
>            Assignee: David Smiley
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 3.6, 4.0
>         Attachments: SOLR-2724_deprecateDefaultSearchField_and_defaultOperator.patch
>   Original Estimate: 2h
>  Remaining Estimate: 2h
> I've always been surprised to see the <defaultSearchField> element and <solrQueryParser
defaultOperator="OR"/> defined in the schema.xml file since the first time I saw them.
 They just seem out of place to me since they are more query parser related than schema related.
But not only are they misplaced, I feel they shouldn't exist. For query parsers, we already
have a "df" parameter that works just fine, and explicit field references. And the default
lucene query operator should stay at OR -- if a particular query wants different behavior
then use q.op or simply use "OR".
> <similarity> Seems like something better placed in solrconfig.xml than in the schema.

> In my opinion, defaultSearchField and defaultOperator configuration elements should be
deprecated in Solr 3.x and removed in Solr 4.  And <similarity> should move to solrconfig.xml.
I am willing to do it, provided there is consensus on it of course.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see:


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message