lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael McCandless <>
Subject Re: Lucene's default settings & back compatibility
Date Wed, 20 May 2009 16:14:05 GMT
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Yonik Seeley
<> wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Mark Miller <> wrote:
>> Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>>> Yeesh, that's evil.  :(
>>> It will be sweet, sweet justice if one of your own projects gets infected
>>> by
>>> the kind of action-at-a-distance bug you're so blithely unconcerned about
>> Heh. Thats a bit over the top. It is evil stuff, but its much less evil in
>> this very contained instance than the general case. Much less.
>> But still a bit evil with the potential to grow. I'm not anymore of a fan of
>> passing a config to each class though. But I guess from a design point
>> of view, it does feel a little less evil.
> Agree.
> But passing settings around doesn't solve the problem.  Example:  New
> settings may be chosen by an application for an IndexSearcher that's
> incompatible with a custom older Query/Weight/Scorer.  There's really
> no getting around that problem.  I think the static helps solve
> drop-in compat for a complete working application.  Good components
> should only be checking the static, not setting it.

Also, this static setting simply tells Lucene how to default settings.

A component/app can still be explicit when creating classes.  EG when
opening an IndexReader, if one always passes in the readOnly arg then
the static "actsAsVersion" would not be used.


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

View raw message