Mailing-List: contact solr-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <45E94191.5010005@benrey.is-a-geek.net>
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 01:36:17 -0800
From: Jed Reynolds <lists@benrey.is-a-geek.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20070104)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: merely a suggestion: schema.xml validator or better schema
 validation
 logging
References: <45E7BAC2.8040001@benrey.is-a-geek.net>
	 <c68e39170703020728q1dac8d35yade666469d2e8229@mail.gmail.com>
	 <45E8DCD6.2060700@benrey.is-a-geek.net>
	 <176776ee0703021842j36eb931chc678168daef3a78@mail.gmail.com>
 <f767f0600703030050k524546ecj1719676927103e3d@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <f767f0600703030050k524546ecj1719676927103e3d@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On 3/3/07, Ryan McKinley <ryantxu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ...The rationale with the solrconfig stuff is that a broken config 
>> should
>> behave as best it can.  This is great if you are running a real site
>> with people actively using it - it is a pain in the ass if you are
>> getting started and don't notice errors....
>
> I think it's a PITA in any case, I like my systems to fail loudly when
> something's wrong in the configs (with details about what's happening,
> of course).
>
> -Bertrand
>
I think it's interesting seeing the difference. The system at CNET 
obviously needed to fail gracefully before it needed to fail fast. I 
have the luxury of a dev environment and fail-fast is exactly the kinda 
thing I want so I know about as many limitations and problems as soon as 
possible.

Having this behavior toggled would be idea. Version the solrconfig.xml 
between a fail-graceful for your production branch and a fail-fast for 
your dev branch.

Jed