lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Shai Erera (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-5125) Codec classes/packages that do not provide (automatic) file format back compat need to be more explicit about this in javadocs
Date Fri, 19 Jul 2013 18:56:55 GMT


Shai Erera commented on LUCENE-5125:

+1 to clarifying javadocs. We can put a new @lucene.indexbreak annotation on these codecs
and resolve the message once in build.xml. I see no harm documenting that a Codec does not
support index backwards.
> Codec classes/packages that do not provide (automatic) file format back compat need to
be more explicit about this in javadocs
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: LUCENE-5125
>                 URL:
>             Project: Lucene - Core
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Hoss Man
> rmuir noted in LUCENE-5121...
> bq. Currently (as documented), we don't provide index back compat for experimental codecs
in lucene-codecs.jar.
> ...but except for a solr wiki page and solrconfig.xml comment, it's extremely non-obvious
that any of these codec classes don't provide index backcompat.
> * the codec module overview.html page describes the module as "Collection of useful codec,
postings format and terms dictionary implementations" -- with no indication that by using
these "useful" implementations, the user gives up index backcompat.
> * the package.html files in the individual packages of the codec module (appending, blockterms,
bbloom, diskdv, etc...) also say nothing about index backcompat
> * the individual classes in these codecs are mostly labeled with {{@lucene.experimental}}
but in the resulting javadoc that merely says that "WARNING: This _API_ is experimental and
might change in incompatible ways in the next release".  Lots of classes in Lucene have this
warning on them about their API (including the abstract codec apis themselves in lucene-core:
DocValuesFormat, PostingsFormat, etc...) and that annotation (as far back as i can remember)
has always only refered to the java API of the labeled class -- never to whether using that
class ment you were giving up on index format back compat.
> Given how much effort and work is put into ensuring good index backcompat for default
codec, we should be extremely explicit when/if alternative codecs do not support backcompat,
so we don't frustrate/confuse users and leave them with the impression that they can never
count on index backcompat just because they may not realize they were using an "unsupported"
format option because of a blog post they read or advice they got on the mailing list about
how to make something faster or use less ram.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see:

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

View raw message