gerlowskija commented on PR #2395:
URL: https://github.com/apache/solr/pull/2395#issuecomment-2049901831

   > Sorry if I rained on your parade, attempting to get this in by EOW.
   
   Oh no worries; there's no particular rush.  That was just how long I was 
planning to wait if no one commented in the interim.  I'm glad you both chimed 
in! 
   
   Though tbh I can't quite tell where you are on the PR approach overall:
   
   1. Are you '-1' this being an URP at all?
   2. Are you OK with this being an URP, with the minor tweaks you mentioned 
(e.g. documenting that it goes _after_ DUP, etc.)?
   3. Are you only OK with this being an URP, but only if we make some 
improvements to the URP framework (e.g. to ensure certain URPs always follow 
DUP)
   4. ...something else?
   
   Please let me know!
   
   One last reply inline:
   
   > To block all indexing, it could set SolrCore.readOnly = true and be done 
with it
   
   IMO `SolrCore.readOnly` is too blunt a tool for the "field limiting" this PR 
attempts.  First because `readOnly` would block deletions and operations that 
we'd want to allow.  And second because a user blocked by 'readOnly' would have 
their `/update` requests fail with a message that's pretty inscrutable or at 
least unrelated to the root cause.
   
   That's what I like about the URP approach - it gives us more granularity 
into the different types of "/update" operations and allows us to get a nice 
(or at least, nicer) error message back to users.
   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@solr.apache.org

Reply via email to