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
