lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Adrien Grand <>
Subject Re: Question about CompressingCodec
Date Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:17:47 GMT
Hi Shai,

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Shai Erera <> wrote:
> what if we made it a non-test class, which takes any Codec to wrap (i.e.
> not default to Lucene41Codec)?

What would be the benefits of having this class vs. extending FilterCodec?

> While at that, should CompressingStoredFieldsFormat be named
> CompressingStoredFieldsFormat41 or something like that, preparing it for
> future changes? Or ... or we can add the version to the name only when it's
> actually changed ...

Given that this class is @lucene.experimental, I think we could do the
following when modifying the file format:
 - if backward compatibility is easy to maintain, just bump the version
 - otherwise copy all the logic to Lucene41StoredFieldsFormat (instead of
making Lucene41StoredFieldsFormat extend CompressingStoredFieldsFormat) and
we can then change anything we want in CompressingStoredFieldsFormat
without worrying about backward compatibility.


View raw message