From lucene-dev-return-3277-qmlist-jakarta-archive-lucene-dev=nagoya.apache.org@jakarta.apache.org Wed Mar 19 20:54:33 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-lucene-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 47641 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2003 20:54:33 -0000 Received: from exchange.sun.com (192.18.33.10) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 19 Mar 2003 20:54:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 21821 invoked by uid 97); 19 Mar 2003 20:56:21 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-lucene-dev@nagoya.betaversion.org Received: (qmail 21814 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2003 20:56:20 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by nagoya.betaversion.org with SMTP; 19 Mar 2003 20:56:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 42839 invoked by uid 500); 19 Mar 2003 20:53:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Lucene Developers List" Reply-To: "Lucene Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list lucene-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 42803 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2003 20:53:32 -0000 Received: from etapestry-colo-32-2.onecall.net (HELO darth?bobo.etapestry.com) (216.37.32.2) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 19 Mar 2003 20:53:31 -0000 Received: from etapestry.com (192.168.1.253 [192.168.1.253]) by darth_bobo.etapestry.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id FST6TPL4; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:54:45 -0500 Message-ID: <3E78D8DB.20000@etapestry.com> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:53:47 -0500 From: Scott Ganyo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, en-gb, it MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lucene Developers List Subject: Re: snowball analyzers in lucene jar? References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N I guess I don't mind it being packaged as part of the base download (although I have no use for them)... but I would prefer that it remain a separate jar file from the core Lucene classes. Scott David Birtwell wrote: > On Wednesday, March 19, 2003, at 03:26 PM, Doug Cutting wrote: > >> Shall we take a vote? Should the snowball analyzers be included in >> the base lucene jar file, or should they continue to be packaged >> separately? >> >> Doug > > > It might seem cleaner from a design perspective to put the Snoball > analyzers in a second package, but I believe it would feel better to a > new Lucene user to have them folded into the base Lucene jar, or at > least distributed with the base Lucene download. The analyzers will > feel more "sanctioned" that way and I believe users would have more > confidence using them. Plus, it would be one less step to get started > with Lucene. > > It's like Ant and optional.jar. We all want to use JUnit tasks. Why > should we all be forced to download and install optional.jar? ;-) > > My 2 cents, > DaveB > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org