lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ogren, Philip V." <>
Subject RE: Proposal for Lucene
Date Thu, 07 Feb 2002 15:11:48 GMT
Nelson's comments are very similar to my initial reaction.  Our attraction
to Lucene was that it was compact, easy to understand and easy to integrate
into our development effort.  I think it is important to maintain a way to
approach Lucene as an indexing library.  I don't think your proposal goes
against this idea - but it doesn't mention it either.  

Having said that, I think the proposal is great.  I don't think this
'application level' effort should have to be in complete isolation from the
'indexing library level'.  They should live in 'symbioses' (as the jedi
would say.)


-----Original Message-----
From: Nelson Minar []
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 8:52 AM
To: Lucene Developers List
Subject: Re: Proposal for Lucene

>This is just a few thoughts about Lucene.  Please send me your feedback,
>critiques and thought.

Interesting and well written! If I read this proposal correctly, what
you're saying is "make Lucene more into an application, rather than
just an indexing library".

I *like* that Lucene doesn't have a spider, or a file tree walker, etc
etc. It's conceptual simplicity. I agree it'd be useful to have easy
applications built with Lucene, but should it be done as part of
Lucene itself or as a separate project?

In either event I think it's important to preserve Lucene's current
library interfaces. If the primary interface into Lucene were via the
proposed Indexer classes, I think Lucene would lose something.

.       .      .     .    .   .  . .

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

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

View raw message