lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Andrew C. Oliver" <>
Subject RE: first draft
Date Thu, 24 Jan 2002 19:47:46 GMT
On Thu, 2002-01-24 at 12:01, Doug Cutting wrote:
> Wow, this looks great!

Thanks!  I try.

> Some quick comments:

Thanks for the quick response.

> 1. I'm not sure we need to tell folks how to build Lucene here.  Shouldn't
> they download a compiled release and just use the jar file there?  The demo
> classes are also provided pre-compiled.  So ant and javacc should not be
> required for the demos.  Of course, once you start changing things you'll
> need ant, but you shouldn't need javacc nor should you need to recompile
> Lucene itself.  Now that JavaCC has been removed from Lucene's lib directory
> (for legal reasons) this is more important.

Would the demos be pre-compiled in the distribution?  The point was to
make sure the user had the demos built.  If this would be the case then
it would be great to rip that out, its certainly more advanced then I'd
like to cover in the "Getting Started" guide.

> 2. I'd remove the mention of merge factor.  We should also probably remove
> this from the demo code.  It's there as a relic of my use of that class for
> testing and benchmarking, but most folks should probably just go with the
> default--especially in a HelloWorld type example.


> 3. Should we upgrade the examples to StandardAnalyzer from StopAnalyzer?
> One of the most common complaints is that Lucene doesn't index numbers:
> that's because most folks start with the demo code which is based on
> LetterTokenizer and throws out numbers.

:-) I just learned something new.

+1.  Definitely, I'll upgrade the examples and the guide. 

> 4. Packages: Pre-Apache the example code was in the "demo" package.  With
> the move to Apache it was put in org.apache.lucene.  Should it instead go in
> a sub-package?

Please complete my understanding.  Did I mention the "demo" package? 
Currently there are two cvs locations under src:


The demos are in org/apache/lucene, but the parent directory is "demo". 
Are you proposing both sources and demos be moved under "java" and demos
be under org.apache.lucene.demo for instance?  I don't have a particular
strong opinion on this but it seems to me the demos are an "optional"
package that one would not necessarily want distributed in a production
application (such as would be the case with inclusion in the main jar
file).  I think moving forward some demos may be promoted to a more
"application" or utility status.  Just my opinion.

As for packaging it in org.apache.lucene.demo in addition to keeping it
in a separate jar (and hence under demo instead of java), I think that
would be a good idea.  Am I following you?  Would you like me to make
this change?

> Anyway, none of these are a big deal.  Overall, Bravo! +1.

On the contrary, these are very helpful.  I'll make the adjustments



> Doug
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <>
-- - port of Excel format to java 
			- fix java generics!

The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to
-Ambassador Kosh

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

View raw message