A large majority of users use single core ONLY. It is hard to explain them the need for an extra componentin the url.
I would say it is a design problem which we should solve instead of asking users to change On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 3:12 AM, Uri Boness <ubon...@gmail.com> wrote: > IMO forcing the users to do configuration change in Solr or in their > application is the same thing - it all boils down to configuration change > (I'll be very surprised if someone is actually hardcoding the Solr URL in > their system - most probably it is configurable, and if it's not, forcing > them to change it is actually a good thing). >> >> Besides, >> if there's only one core, why need a name? > > Consistency. Having a default core as Israel suggested can probably do the > trick. But, at first it might seem that having a default core and not > needing to specify the core name will make it easier for users to use. But I > actually disagree - don't under estimate the power of being consistent. I > rather have a manual telling me "this is how it works and it always work > like that in all scenarios" then having something like "this is how it works > but if you have scenario A then it works differently and you have to do this > instead". > > Shalin Shekhar Mangar wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 8:16 PM, Uri Boness <ubon...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> >>> Is it really a problem? I mean, as i see it, solr to cores is what RDBMS >>> is >>> to databases. When you connect to a database you also need to specify the >>> database name. >>> >>> >>> >> >> The problem is compatibility. If we make solr.xml compulsory then we only >> force people to do a configuration change. But if we make a core name >> mandatory, then we force them to change their applications (or the >> applications' configurations). It is better if we can avoid that. Besides, >> if there's only one core, why need a name? >> >> > -- ----------------------------------------------------- Noble Paul | Principal Engineer| AOL | http://aol.com
