lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From DM Smith <dmsmith...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Core vs Contrib
Date Wed, 21 Jun 2006 11:33:21 GMT

On Jun 21, 2006, at 3:43 AM, Chris Hostetter wrote:

>
> : I think that it might be good to define 3 levels:
> : fundamental - what all programs probably will use
> : useful - what many programs might use
> : contrib - mostly examples and code that is not quite ready to be
> : classed as useful
>
> Those three levels make sense -- but they don't map to what's  
> currently
> available in the Subversion repository.  Unless I create a new
> "useful" directory and make the neccessary changes to the build  
> system to
> build everything in it, my current choices are to put new features in
> contrib, or add them to the core.

My reasoning for this suggestion was simple:
We have been discussing Java 5 and it was suggested (not just by me)  
that core lucene be kept at Java 1.4. The current model is as you  
stated, but it suggests that as time goes on more and more very  
useful stuff is added to the core without adding to fundamental, base  
functionality. The nature of contrib seems like a "use at your own  
risk," "your mileage may vary" kind of code. And more of an example  
than a production quality.

My guess is that the very heart of lucene won't change much from an  
API perspective.

And yes, it does represent a bit of work and a bit more management.

>
> : On Jun 16, 2006, at 6:03 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
>
> : > Are there any written (or unwritten) guidelines on when something
> : > should
> : > be commited to the core code base vs when a contrib module should
> : > be used?
> : >
> : > Obviously if a new feature rquires changing APIs omodifying one  
> of the
> : > existing core classes, then that kind of needs to be in the  
> core --
> : > and
> : > there is precidence for the idea thatlangauge specific analyzers
> : > should go
> : > in contrib; and then of course there are things like the Span  
> queries
> : > which seem like htey would have been a prime canidate for a  
> contrib
> : > module
> : > but they aren't (possibly just because when they were added there
> : > was no
> : > "contrib" -- just the sandbox, and it didn't rev with lucene  
> core).
> : >
> : > ...But I'm just wondering if as we move forward, there should  
> be some
> : > sated policy "unless there is a specific reason why it must be  
> in the
> : > core, put it in a contrib" to help keep the core small -- or if  
> i'm
> : > wrong
> : > about hte general sentiment of the Lucene core.
> : >
> : >
> : > (FYI: my impedus for asking this question is LUCENE-406 -- I think
> : > it's a
> : > pretty handy feature that everyone might want, but that doesn't
> : > mean it's
> : > not just as usefull commited in contrib/miscellaneous)
>
>
> -Hoss
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message