Return-Path: 
 <dev-return-128145-apmail-lucene-dev-archive=lucene.apache.org@lucene.apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 15E04FDB1
	for <apmail-lucene-dev-archive@www.apache.org>;
 Tue, 19 Mar 2013 22:29:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 2081 invoked by uid 500); 19 Mar 2013 22:29:16 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org
Received: (qmail 1989 invoked by uid 500); 19 Mar 2013 22:29:16 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:dev-help@lucene.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@lucene.apache.org>
List-Id: <dev.lucene.apache.org>
Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@lucene.apache.org
Received: (qmail 1856 invoked by uid 99); 19 Mar 2013 22:29:16 -0000
Received: from arcas.apache.org (HELO arcas.apache.org) (140.211.11.28)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 22:29:16 +0000
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 22:29:16 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Hoss Man (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Message-ID: <JIRA.12419349.1237927678268.15296.1363732156298@arcas>
In-Reply-To: <JIRA.12419349.1237927678268@arcas>
References: <JIRA.12419349.1237927678268@arcas>
Subject: [jira] [Commented] (SOLR-1086) Need to rectify inconsistent
 behavior when people associate an analyzer with a non-TextField fieldType
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1086?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13606943#comment-13606943 ] 

Hoss Man commented on SOLR-1086:
--------------------------------

this issue actually pre-dates a lot of newer functionality in solr -- in particular UpdateProcessors.

I would suggest that while we should still add schema validation checking ot error if someone tries to use an analyzer where it's no supported (if it hasn't already been added?) for things like date format parsing or number format parsing (where you want it to produce Date/Integer/Float/etc objects for _storage_ not just for term indxing) those would make the most sense as UpdateProcessors.
                
> Need to rectify inconsistent behavior when people associate an analyzer with a non-TextField fieldType
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: SOLR-1086
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1086
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Schema and Analysis
>    Affects Versions: 1.1.0, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4
>            Reporter: Hoss Man
>              Labels: newdev
>
> Currently, specifying an <analyzer> is only supported when using the TextField class -- however:
>  1) no error is logged if an <analyzer> is declared for other field types
>  2) the analysis screen gives the mistaken impression that the analyzer is being used...
> http://www.nabble.com/Field-tokenizer-question-to22594575.html

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org