lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dennis Kubes <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)
Date Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:54:03 GMT
It was late when I wrote that, maybe my analogy was not clear.  You are 
echoing what I was trying to say that that Hadoop != Nutch and it 
wouldn't have been as useful if it had only ever been viewed that way. 
I think part of this discussion is looking at Lucene as needing things 
that are beyond it.  That should be other projects.

Here is my logic FWIW:

Solr depends on Lucene.
Many other projects depend critically on Lucene
Not all of those projects depend on Solr
Solr and Lucene have different responsibilities
Therefore Solr != Lucene and should not merge dev.

Should Solr work more closely to move some of it pieces into Lucene if 
they are applicable.  Yes.  To me that doesn't mean merge.


Ted Dunning wrote:
> This logic escapes me.
> Nutch hatched Hadoop.  Hadoop was perceived to be of much broader utility
> than just for nutch so it was made more general and a separate project was
> formed.  Hadoop does not depend on Nutch.
> Lucene existed.  Solr was built to make it easier to use Lucene.  The
> developers of Solr built a bunch of stuff that was specific to server-ness
> and a bunch of stuff that would have general utility to many Lucene
> developers.  Solr depends critically on Lucene and can be seen as a Lucene
> wrapper.
> How does this analogy fit together?  Is it supposed to be Hadoop is to Nutch
> as Solr is to Lucene?  That seems so clearly wrong it can't be what you were
> saying.
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Dennis Kubes <> wrote:
>>> 3) For new Lucene features, there would be an effort to integrate it
>>> into Solr.
>> No.  Because by specializing towards Solr, or Nutch, or any of the hundred
>> other applications that use Lucene, it looses its general applicability.
>>  Where would Hadoop be if it never made it past Nutch?

View raw message