[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8975?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15283920#comment-15283920
 ] 

Jason Gerlowski commented on SOLR-8975:
---------------------------------------

Sitting down to start working on this now.  A few particulars for this came up 
over on SOLR-8097:

- patch based on master
- deprecate existing SolrClient setters
- Javadocs for (now deprecated) SolrClient setters should indicate that they're 
not thread-safe.
- remove usage of any SolrClient setters
- add corresponding setters on SolrClientBuilder types.

Hopefully these changes should raise any complications, and we can refine 
things once the initial patch for this gets up.

> SolrClient setters should be deprecated in favor of SolrClientBuilder methods
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: SOLR-8975
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8975
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: SolrJ
>            Reporter: Jason Gerlowski
>            Priority: Minor
>
> SOLR-8097 added a builder layer on top of each {{SolrClient}} implementation.
> Now that builders are in place for SolrClients, the setters used in each 
> SolrClient can be deprecated, and their functionality moved over to the 
> Builders.  This change brings a few benefits:
> - unifies SolrClient configuration under the new Builders.  It'll be nice to 
> have all the knobs, and levers used to tweak SolrClients available in a 
> single place (the Builders).
> - reduces SolrClient thread-safety concerns.  Currently, clients are mutable. 
>  Using some SolrClient setters can result in erratic and "trappy" behavior 
> when the clients are used across multiple threads.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to