lucene-solr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Chris A. Mattmann (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] Commented: (SOLR-17) XSD for solr requests/responses
Date Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:44:19 GMT


Chris A. Mattmann commented on SOLR-17:

Chris, it seems that you are taking my comment personally. Please don't; it is not my intention
to ridicule anyone's efforts. 

I wouldn't say I took it personally -- as I said, I'm not sure I appreciated the tone of the
comment. A one-liner, that's curt, provides no background (lest only an opinion), and that
sounds like ridicule will elicit such a response in many cases, see Netiquette Guidelines:

As you can see, this issue has been open for some time now and a major reason is that we have
never found a good use for an XSD. I'm merely trying to say that it seems like we're trying
to find use-cases for a solution instead of starting with an actual need.

Sure, judging by its issue number (17), I could tell it has been open for a while. The ongoing
conversation regarding SOLR-1586, see here:

led me to this issue, as pointed out by Hoss. There _have_ been some relevant discussions
that have come up regarding XSD's, which was my point. So, I'm not sure that we're _trying_
to find anything -- the discussion presented itself on its own. Furthermore, even if the discussion
hadn't occured, it doesn't seem very contribution friendly to ignore something that clearly
adds value to a group of people. XML and XSD people exist and have their tools (as I noted
above, Doxygen, XMLSpy, etc.) for doing validation, and for generating sample XML files, for
designing XML, etc.. Just because there aren't a lot of votes on the issue, or lots of mail
traffic, it doesn't mean that the issue should not get attention. I'm not sure what's so controversial
about adding an XSD to the SOLR trunk. Hence my point in calling attention to this issue.
There's been a patch available for quite some time. What's missing from the patch to get this
contribution into the trunk? 

My point is that Solr can use it we want to but Solr certainly does not need to use it. I
don't think we gain much by an XSD.

I agree that SOLR, from a code/API/functionality perspective, does not _need_ to use it. However,
it would not hurt anything to add the XSD as part of the trunk for those that would like to
download it and use it to understand how to write additional SOLR XML consuming clients. Or
for those that would like to validate SOLR XML responses they receive. This isn't outside
of the ordinary at all, and I think only adds value, and doesn't take any away. If the concern
is maintaining it, I'd be happy to do so. I'm sure there are others that would contribute
as well.

> XSD for solr requests/responses
> -------------------------------
>                 Key: SOLR-17
>                 URL:
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Mike Baranczak
>            Priority: Minor
>         Attachments: solr-complex.xml, solr-rev2.xsd, solr.xsd,
> Attaching an XML schema definition for the responses and the update requests. I needed
to do this for myself anyway, so I might as well contribute it to the project.
> At the moment, I have no plans to write an XSD for the config documents, but it wouldn't
be a bad idea.
> TODO: change the schema URL. I'm guessing that Apache already has some sort of naming
convention for these?

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

View raw message