lucene-solr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erik Hatcher <>
Subject Re: finer granularity of configuration
Date Sat, 10 Feb 2007 07:07:00 GMT

On Feb 9, 2007, at 10:47 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
> : : Does this patch make sense to commit as-is, or could it be  
> committed
> : : with some tweaks, or is it not a good general approach and  
> needs to
> : : be thought out more?
> :
> : I suppose it's okay...
> just to clarify that statement: i have no strong objection to it being
> committed, as long as Erik agree's to assign SOLR-79 to himself and
> work on it as soon as someone requests YASP (Yet Another System  
> Property)
> 	:)
> does that sound likie a fair deal Erik?

Sounds totally fair (assigned _to me_).  To be honest, I only just  
glanced at the code for SOLR-79. It may be just what the doctor  
ordered with some tweaks.  I sorta have some experience with the $ 
{..} syntax and would switch the syntax in the patch to be Ant-like  
in this regard.  I'll come up with some unit tests along the way too.

Thanks, Hoss, for the prod to do this the better way from the start.

Having control over the Solr configuration from the launching JVM  
above and beyond the configuration files makes a lot of sense.

What I'm working on is a system to bring up Solr + Flare instances  
easily, sharing schemas but different data directories, and such.  I  
can see cache settings being overridden.

Hoss, you mentioned multiple server instances pointing to the same  
index directory.  Would that be a reasonable configuration?  Any  
contention issues with multiple Solr instances pointed at a single  
index?  I kinda always envisioned one-to-one Solr instance and index.


View raw message