On 3/7/2017 9:41 AM, OTH wrote: > I understand that managed-schema is not supposed to be edited by hand but > only via the "API". All I understand about this "API" however, is that it > may be referring to the "Schema" page in the Solr browser-based Admin. > > However, in this "Schema" page, it provides options for "Add Field", "Add > Dynamic Field", "Add Copy Field"; but when I was trying to add a > "fieldType", I couldn't find any way to do this from this web page.
The schema page in the admin UI is not actually the Schema API, but it USES the Schema API. The admin UI is a javascript app that runs in your browser and makes Solr API requests. Admin UI URLs are useless outside of a full browser. > So I instead edited the managed-schema page by hand, which I understand can > be problematic if the schema is ever edited it via the API later on? Hand-editing is only problematic if you mix those edits with using the API and forget to reload or restart after a hand-edit and before using the API. If you are careful to reload/restart before switching editing methods, there will be no problems. > I am using v. 6.4.1; when I create a new core, it creates the > managed-schema file in the 'conf' folder. Is there any way to use the > older 'schema.xml' format instead? Because there seems to be more > documentation available for that, and like I describe, the browser API > seems to perhaps be lacking. The "format" of the schema never changes. It is exactly the same with either file. It is the filename that is different. Also, the managed schema allows the Schema API to be used, so you can edit it with HTTP requests. If you switch to the Classic schema, then it will go back to schema.xml. Depending on which example configuration you start with, switching back to Classic may require more config edits beyond just changing the schema factory. There are additional features Solr can use that rely on the managed schema. > If so - what do users usually prefer; schema.xml or managed-schema? (I'm > aware this depends on individual preference, but would be nice to get > others' feedback.) As for what users prefer, I do not know. I can tell you that the default schema factory has been the managed schema since version 5.5, and all example configs since that version are using it. When I upgrade to a 6.x version in production, I plan on keeping the managed schema, because it's good to go with defaults unless there's a good reason not to, but I will continue to hand-edit for all changes. Thanks, Shawn
