lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Busch <>
Subject Re: Attached proposed modifications to Lucene 2.0 to support Field.Store.Encrypted
Date Wed, 06 Dec 2006 00:02:20 GMT
negrinv wrote:
> there is a third way Doug,  and it's for me to stop trying to be polite by
> answering all the questions that I am being asked, then nobody will get
> upset by my replies. If the decision is for no encryption at field level, I
> accept it, but I don't believe it should be externalised. Perhaps someone
> else will pick up your offer.
> V.

nobody is upset here (I hope you're not either :-) ). I think all Doug 
wanted to tell you is that you are quite tenacious about your point of 
putting encryption into the core of Lucene. The fact that you got a lot 
of responses to your mail shows, that the developers are not neglecting 
this topic but are rather trying to find a solution better suitable for 
all Lucene users.

This is just how open source works. You can make suggestions, but you 
have to listen to the community consisting of developers and users and 
what they think about it. In the Lucene developer team are a lot of very 
bright people and in almost all cases patches/new features benefit at 
the end from interesting discussions and different opinions.

So if you accept how open source works and if you're up for making 
changes to your patch so that the community will like it, everybody will 
benefit: you, because you learn from experienced people, your patch 
because it gets a better quality and the users, because they get some 
kind of encryption support in Lucene.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message