lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thomas Scheffler <thomas.scheff...@uni-jena.de>
Subject Re: SOLRJ and SOLR compatibility
Date Thu, 27 Feb 2014 07:49:49 GMT
Am 27.02.2014 08:04, schrieb Shawn Heisey:
> On 2/26/2014 11:22 PM, Thomas Scheffler wrote:
>> I am one developer of a repository framework. We rely on the fact, that
>> "SolrJ generally maintains backwards compatibility, so you can use a
>> newer SolrJ with an older Solr, or an older SolrJ with a newer Solr." [1]
>>
>> This statement is not even true for bugfix releases like 4.6.0 -> 4.6.1.
>> (SOLRJ 4.6.1, SOLR 4.6.0)
>>
>> We use SolrInputDocument from SOLRJ to index our documents (javabin).
>> But as framework developer we are not in a role to force our users to
>> update their SOLR server such often. Instead with every new version we
>> want to update just the SOLRJ library we ship with to enable latest
>> features, if the user wishes.
>>
>> When I send a query to a request handler I can attach a "version"
>> parameter to tell SOLR which version of the response format I expect.
>>
>> Is there such a configuration when indexing SolrInputDocuments? I did
>> not find it so far.
>
> What problems have you seen with mixing 4.6.0 and 4.6.1?  It's possible
> that I'm completely ignorant here, but I have not heard of any.

Actually bug reports arrive me that sound like

"Unknown type 19"

I am currently not able to reproduce it myself with server version 
4.5.0, 4.5.1 and 4.6.0 when using solrj 4.6.1

It sounds to be the same issue like described here:

http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/After-upgrading-indexer-to-SolrJ-4-6-1-o-a-solr-servlet-SolrDispatchFilter-Unknown-type-19-td4116152.html

The solution there was to upgrade the Server to version 4.6.1.

This helped here, too. Out there it is a very unpopular decision. Some 
user have large SOLR installs and stick to a certain (4.x) version. They 
want upgrades from us but upgrading company-wide SOLR installations is 
out of their scope.

Is that a known SOLRJ issue that is fixed in version 4.7.0?

kind regards,

Thomas

Mime
View raw message