it can’t decide which class goes where under which namespace
I don’t think it can do that
you can define the factories and filters per field type in your custom http://types.ss template
more of a hint
so if Marcus is using some custom query or expecting content to be found in certain fields, it may not work.
I only said that fts queries _text by default, not the Content field. How the actual content gets into _text was not a part of my post
I didn’t talk about how or why _text works.
so to every statement there can be a lot of “but that” and “or that” kind of arguments
I agree, I’m not trying to be hostile, it’s just wading into search in my opinion is very messy currently within silverstripe.
I would mildly disagree.
FTS is around for quite some time and once one understands its ways of doing “things”, it can be bent as much as you wish.
we use it on all our projects and apart from not supporting newer versions of Solr and some opinionated ways of doing things, I don’t it’s a bad thing.
the lack of active development, in this case, doesn’t mean it’s not a mature and stable module
Well the issue was I could get indexing working, but bringing in the search form/results just didn’t seem to work. Granted I probably have more knowledge now to make it work. The docs in fts just say ‘do this’ and it didn’t work. 😕
and I started looking at CWP as that seems to be the main implementation of FTS, which got me more confused.
hence I came to that channel - and hence where I am now.
if someone else had responded to my earlier queries, I probably would have continued with FTS, as firesphere’s certainly had less docs and more wtf moments, but then he pretty much has been helping me along the way. And the way he talked, his library will eventually replace fts.
if it’s for learning, then all good… if it’s for a project that will go live soon (next 2-6 months), use FTS with the fixes to make it work with Solr 6 — that’d be my recommendation
well.. he works at silverstripe, but is not silverstripe.. so it’s not up to him whether it will replace it or not
yeh definitely be going live shortly.
there certainly needs to be development done to make FTS work with Solr8
yeh, merging the solr5 changes would be good step - as solr4 is EOL, it was one of the factors to making me change libraries.
it’s just a documentation hold up… I’ll poke it a bit and/or possibly create a parallel PR with the changes addressed to get it moving
simplifying things here though, it can do so much when customised