On 3 Jul 2010, at 1:50 am, Chris Hostetter wrote:
: The changes to AbstractSubTypeFieldType do not have any adverse
effects on the
: solr.PointType class, so I'd quite like to suggest it gets
included in the
: main solr source code. Where can I send a patch for someone to
evaluate or
: should I just attach it to the issue in JIRA and see what happens?
: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1131
please open a new Jira issue.
OK, done.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1986
I'm not too familiar with AbstractSubTypeFieldType, but your
improvement
sounds pretty good to me on the surface ... i'm just wondering if we
should have a simpler way of specifying the suffix when dimension is
really large.
Yes, I wondered that myself but wasn't sure which way to go.
I thought about something like this:
<fieldType name="temporal"
class="uk.ac.edina.solr.schema.TemporalCoverage" dimension="3">
<subFieldSuffix>_ti</subFieldSuffix>
<subFieldSuffix>_ti</subFieldSuffix>
<subFieldSuffix>_s</subFieldSuffix>
</fieldType>
but it doesn't really seem to help much. If anything, it probably
makes it *less* readable.
Mark
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
