lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Proposal about Version API "relaxation"
Date Thu, 15 Apr 2010 21:19:50 GMT
As soon as I have removed version, then we can fix StandardTokenizer too!

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Shai Erera <serera@gmail.com> wrote:

> By all means Robert ... by all means :). Remember who started that thread,
> and for what reason :D.
>
> Shai
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If you really believe this. then you have no problem if i remove all
>> Version from all core and contrib analyzers right now.
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Shai Erera <serera@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Robert ... I'm sorry but changes to Analyzers don't *force* people to
>>> reindex. They can simply choose not to use the latest version. They can
>>> choose not to upgrade a Unicode version. They can copy the entire Analyzer
>>> code to match their needs. Index format changes is what I'm worried about
>>> because that *forces* people to reindex.
>>>
>>> Analyzers, believe it or not, are just a tool, an out of the box tool
>>> even, we're giving users to analyze their stuff. Probably a tool used by
>>> most of our users, but not all. Some have their own tools, that are
>>> currently wrapped as a Lucene Analyzer just because the API mandates. But we
>>> were talking about that too recently no? Ripping Analyzer off IndexWriter?
>>>
>>> Just to be clear - I think your work on Analyzers is fantastic ! Really !
>>> Seriously !
>>> But it's a choice someone can make ... whereas index format is a given -
>>> you have to live with it, or never upgrade Lucene.
>>>
>>> But I think we've chewed that way too much. I am all for removing bw on
>>> Analyzers, and 2396 is a great step towards it (or maybe it is IT?). Even
>>> index format - I don't see when it will change next (but I think I have an
>>> idea ...), so we can tackle it then.
>>>
>>> Shai
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Shai Erera <serera@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Actually, I'd like to know if people like Robert (basically those who
>>>>> have no problem to reindex and don't understand the fuss around it) will
>>>>> want to change the index format - can I count on them to be asked to
provide
>>>>> such tool? That's to me a policy we should decide on ... whatever the
>>>>> consequences.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> just look at the 1.8MB of backwards compat code in contrib/analyzers i
>>>> want to remove in LUCENE-2396?
>>>> are you serious? I wrote most of that cruft to prevent reindexing and
>>>> you are trying to say I "don't understand the fuss about it"?
>>>>
>>>> We shouldnt make people reindex, but we should have the chance, even if
>>>> we only do it ONE TIME, to reset Lucene to a new "Major Version" that has
a
>>>> bunch of stuff fixed we couldnt fix before, and more flexibility.
>>>>
>>>> because with the current policy, its like we are in 1.x forever.... our
>>>> version numbers are a joke!
>>>> --
>>>> Robert Muir
>>>> rcmuir@gmail.com
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Robert Muir
>> rcmuir@gmail.com
>>
>
>


-- 
Robert Muir
rcmuir@gmail.com

Mime
View raw message