Have a look at the test source tree, under org/compass/core/test/resource for examples.

(by the way, the forum is a better place for questions like this one).

and I do not need a mapping file anymore. I see this as a nice feature, because then you can control the mapping completely from code.
Do not misunderstand, I think having a mapping file is an advantage, but I also think programatic configuration is complementary.

Also, from your code, Compass still does not know that resourceIdProp is the id, there will have to be something like Resource#addIdProperty, and Resource will have to keep track what properties act as the ids.

RSEM File:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE compass-core-mapping PUBLIC
"-//Compass/Compass Core Mapping DTD 1.0//EN"
"http://www.opensymphony.com/compass/dtd/compass-core-mapping.dtd">

<compass-core-mapping>

<resource alias="alias1">
<resource-id name="id" />
<resource-property name="namespace" store="yes" index="un_tokenized" />
<resource-property name="resourceId" store="yes" index="no"/>
<resource-property name="resourceName" store="yes" index="un_tokenized" />
<resource-property name="resourceCanonicalpath" store="yes" index="no"/>
<resource-property name="rootObjectType" store="yes" index="no"/>
<resource-property name="rootObjectId" store="yes" index="no"/>
</resource>
</compass-core-mapping>

CODE SNIPPET:

org.compass.core.Resource r = session.createResource("alias1");

r.addProperty("id", key.getResourceIdentifier());
r.addProperty("namespace", "defaultnamespace");
r.addProperty("resourceId", key.getResourceIdentifier());
r.addProperty("resourceName", key.getName());
r.addProperty("resourceCanonicalpath", key.getCanonicalPath());

r.addProperty(session.createProperty("testPropName",
"testPropValue", Property.Store.YES,
Property.Index.TOKENIZED, Property.TermVector.WITH_POSITIONS_OFFSETS)); //adding a field with name "testPropName"

QUERY RELATED CODE SNIPPET:

CompassSession session = indexCompass.openSession();
CompassQuery query = null;
CompassQueryBuilder queryBuilder;
CompassTransaction tx = null;
try { tx = session.beginTransaction(); queryBuilder = session.queryBuilder(); query = queryBuilder.term("alias1.testPropName", searchTerm); // the code fails here with the following : // java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Failed to find mapping for alias [alias1] and path [alias1.testPropName] CompassHits hits = query.hits(); tx.commit(); } catch (CompassException ce) { if (tx != null) tx.rollback(); } catch (Exception e) { System.out.println(e.getMessage()); if (tx != null) tx.rollback(); }
finally { session.close(); }

Even <propertyname>:<term> doesnt work if i do not have the "all" field.

For e.g. if there are two properties A and B. A is part of the .cpm file i.e. is part of the mapping but property B is added programmatically. Then if the mapping is defined without the use of "all" then searches like "B:abc" do not return any result even if there are potential matches. But the searches like "A:abc" do work fine.

On the other hand if I enable the use of "all" then both "B:abc" and "A:abc" work absolutely fine.

May be I am missing something here. I would really appreciate some help on this. As this could be a potential issue for my application as I would prefer not to use the "all" field. as the properties have their individual ranking which I would want to be preserved.

Thanks in advance for your help.