lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Doug Cutting <cutt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: NewIndexModifier - - - DeletingIndexWriter
Date Fri, 09 Feb 2007 17:28:38 GMT
Michael McCandless wrote:
> I agree extensions points are nice.  Maybe we could leave the
> extension points ("doAfterFlushRamSegments", etc.) but merge
> NewIndexModifier into IndexWriter?
> 
> Though I do worry that by adding these extension points we tie our
> hands for later.

I think this is a valid concern.  Can the extension points be kept 
package-private?  It makes them awkward to use, since non-core code must 
add things in org.apache.lucene.index.  But we shouldn't make something 
public that we don't intend to support long-term.  Deprecation is for 
unforseen changes.

> I also think it's now confusing to users which class (IndexModifier,
> NewIndexModifier, IndexWriter) to use to write to an index.  I would
> prefer a single IndexWriter class now because this is more closely
> towards our eventual goal of "use IndexWriter to make changes; use
> IndexReader to search/read".

+1, with qualifications.  A single IndexWriter would be ideal, so long 
as it doesn't have public methods that cannot be supported long-term 
(see above), and it doesn't impact non-deleting uses (which Hoss assures 
us it won't).

Doug

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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