Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-lucene-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 81558 invoked from network); 12 Jul 2004 17:55:35 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 12 Jul 2004 17:55:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 35302 invoked by uid 500); 12 Jul 2004 17:55:32 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-lucene-dev-archive@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 35276 invoked by uid 500); 12 Jul 2004 17:55:32 -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 35250 invoked by uid 99); 12 Jul 2004 17:55:31 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [207.217.120.133] (HELO asmtp-a063f31.pas.sa.earthlink.net) (207.217.120.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.27.1) with ESMTP; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 10:55:29 -0700 Received: from user-1121ked.dsl.mindspring.com ([66.32.209.205] helo=ENGELSSERVER) by asmtp-a063f31.pas.sa.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Bk51S-0001WV-RG for lucene-dev@jakarta.apache.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 10:55:27 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Robert Engels" To: "Lucene Developers List" Subject: RE: release & migration plan Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 12:55:43 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <40F2CE13.80404@apache.org> X-ELNK-Trace: 33cbdd8ed9881ca8776432462e451d7b2728ff8d3d716ca3976576719bb6f8a77470d630fc3ea034350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 66.32.209.205 X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Yes. I think if IndexReader is an interface (which might use a completely different physical storage mechanism then Lucene uses), IndexWriter needs to be an interface as well (in order to get the documents into the index). By making the Reader and Writer interfaces, implementations can still use the Lucene search capabilities, tokenizers, remote searches, etc. Robert -----Original Message----- From: Doug Cutting [mailto:cutting@apache.org] Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 12:45 PM To: Lucene Developers List Subject: Re: release & migration plan Robert Engels wrote: > I think the IndexReader and IndexWriter should be interfaces, and change the > codebase to use the interface where possible. I agree that IndexReader should be an interface. I'm less convinced about IndexWriter. I have a little harder time imagining alternate, pluggable implementations of IndexWriter. Perhaps one would want to write something which uses a different algorithm for merging indexes? So then the interface would be addDocument(), addIndexes(), optimize(), close(), get/setSimilarity and getAnalyzer(), with the rest of the methods, especially all the new accessors (getMergeFactor(), getMaxBufferedDocs, etc.) as implementation-specific? Is that what you have in mind? Doug --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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