Return-Path: 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 E7CA7F81E for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 07:39:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 32604 invoked by uid 500); 2 May 2013 07:39:27 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 32300 invoked by uid 500); 2 May 2013 07:39:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 32283 invoked by uid 99); 2 May 2013 07:39:26 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 May 2013 07:39:26 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: error (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [209.85.217.174] (HELO mail-lb0-f174.google.com) (209.85.217.174) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 May 2013 07:39:20 +0000 Received: by mail-lb0-f174.google.com with SMTP id r10so247684lbi.33 for ; Thu, 02 May 2013 00:38:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject :message-id:date:to:mime-version:x-mailer:x-gm-message-state; bh=Gx9wE1xYvfzXcAtzfXM2WqSF9u0bSgGtxbQIfPQJuhs=; b=T7A3GQxSejA/GwOREZZTZQerV4vRpWuTkz1n3ZS56duv0rzRWxsM3k7iAp2iWoxmxD ZY5zkrylwmEk60TkDJsqvVXC33iCy5rgpLONtIq4SIczk0WEqnGnmoafVeLlb7EZ8b67 GfxxenVcimbXx0amur0Z4WaV+cRFILSJRzf9PyRjNlc7J0Phhtz+b4sXFrmYWfhdxlp8 5FehndgpeExhgmSy+LsJ6xgGNgioIPDA7j7DO+Crr/1vmhrShhIihRss9rGwH+43qotD 19qNI6Da0L28YTCAg0rYKoWnWoNJlraiqsTfeMDW7c8eZVJERH6mLqKhvkqhx00BSYEo +h8w== X-Received: by 10.152.1.232 with SMTP id 8mr2061291lap.33.1367480319667; Thu, 02 May 2013 00:38:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.128.183] ([195.159.250.194]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id c15sm2296616lbj.17.2013.05.02.00.38.38 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 02 May 2013 00:38:39 -0700 (PDT) From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jan_H=F8ydahl?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [Discussion] Discontinue the ROLLBACK command in Solr? Message-Id: <22E052A3-C189-4075-8490-FFF92AF02688@cominvent.com> Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 09:38:37 +0200 To: "dev@lucene.apache.org" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQma9DRzp+blpgAs+Rjs9qER3KhmpjG/gopz526npzf2lRjJjSNuPnfeUTjDwma1tj7QuMJp X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Hi, Many are confused about the rollback feature in Solr, since it cannot = guarantee a rollback of updates from that client since last commit. In my opinion it is pretty useless to have a rollback feature you cannot = rely upon - Unless, that is, you are the only client for sure, having no = autoCommit, and a huge RAMbuffer. So why don't we simply deprecate the feature in 4.x and remove it from = 5.0? -- Jan H=F8ydahl, search solution architect Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com Solr Training - www.solrtraining.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org