: > Is there anything wrong with just using string or text fieldType? : > If you use the XML writer, it will get returned xml encodedd (> becomes > : > etc). : : This is quite the only change I done to StrField, so I get back the original : XML string stored, and could directly transform it with XSL.
this idea has been discussed before, most notably in this thread... http://www.nabble.com/Indexing-XML-files-to7705775.html ...as discussed there, the crux of the isue is not a special fieldtype, but a custom ResponseWriter that outputs the XML you want, and leaves any field values you want unescaped (assuming you trust them to be wellformed) how you decide what field values to leave unescaped could either be hardcoded, or driven by the FieldType of each field (in which case you might write an XmlField that subclasses StrField, but you wouldn't need to override any methods -- just see that the FieldType is XmlField and use that as your guide. : I would be glad that this class could be commited, so that I do not need to : keep it up to date with future Solr release. as long as you stick to the contracts of FieldType and/or ResponseWriter you don't need to worry -- these are published SolrPlugin APIs that Solr won't break ... we expect people to implment them, and people can expect their plugins to work when they upgrade Solr. http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrPlugins -Hoss
