lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Grant Ingersoll <grant.ingers...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Flexible indexing
Date Mon, 12 Mar 2007 01:09:20 GMT

On Mar 11, 2007, at 5:41 PM, Michael Busch wrote:

> Hi Grant,
>
> I certainly agree that it would be great if we could make some  
> progress and commit the payloads patch soon. I think it is quite  
> independent from FI. FI will introduce different posting formats  
> (see Wiki: http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/FlexibleIndexing).  
> Payloads will be part of some of those formats, but not all (i. e.  
> per-position payloads only make sense if positions are stored).
>

Yep, I agree.

> The only concern some people had was about the API the patch  
> introduces. It extends Token and TermPositions. Doug's argument  
> was, that if we introduce new APIs now but want to change them with  
> FI, then it will be hard to support those APIs. I think that is a  
> valid point, but at the same time it slows down progress to have to  
> plan ahead in too many directions. That's why I'd vote for marking  
> the new APIs as experimental so that people can try them out at own  
> risk.
> If we could agree on that approach then I'd go ahead and submit an  
> updated payloads patch in the next days, that applies cleanly on  
> the current trunk and contains the additional warnings in the  
> javadocs.
>

+1.

>
> In regard of FI and 662 however I really believe we should split it  
> up and plan ahead (in a way I mentioned already), so that we have  
> more isolated patches. It is really great that we have 662 already  
> (Nicolas, thank you so much for your hard work, I hope you'll keep  
> working with us on FI!!). We'll probably use some of that code, and  
> it will definitely be helpful.
>

+1  I think this makes a lot of sense.  We have been deliberating  
these changes for some time, so no reason to hurry.  I don't think  
they are urgent, yet they really will give us more flexibility and  
more capabilities for more people, so it will be a good thing to have.


> Michael
>
> Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> This is very good.  I know 662 is different, just wasn't sure if  
>> Nicolas patch was meant to be applied after 662, b/c I know we had  
>> discussed this before.
>>
>> I do agree with you about planning this out, but I also know that  
>> patches seem to motivate people the best and provide a certain  
>> concreteness to it all.  I mostly started asking questions on  
>> these two issues b/c I wanted to spur some more discussion and see  
>> if we can get people motivated to move on it.
>>
>> I was hoping that I would be able to apply each patch to two  
>> different checkouts so I could start seeing where the overlap is  
>> and how they could fit together (I also admit I was  
>> procrastinating on my ApacheCon talk...).  In the new, flexible  
>> world, the payloads implementation could be a separate  
>> implementation of the indexing or it could be part of the core/ 
>> existing file format implementation.  Sometimes I just need to get  
>> my hands on the code to get a real feel for what I feel is the  
>> best way to do it.
>>
>> I agree about the XML storage for Index information.  We do that  
>> in our in-house wrapper around Lucene, storing info about the  
>> language, analyzer used, etc.  We may also want a binary index- 
>> level storage capability.  I know most people just create a single  
>> document usually to store binary info about the index, but an  
>> binary storage might be good too.
>>
>> Part of me says to apply the Payloads patch now, as it provides a  
>> lot of bang for the buck and I think the FI is going to take a lot  
>> longer to hash out.  However, I know that it may pin us in or  
>> force us to change things for FI.  Ultimately, I would love to see  
>> both these features for the next release, but that isn't a  
>> requirement.  Also, on FI, I would love to see two different  
>> implementations of whatever API we choose before releasing it, as  
>> I always find two implementations of an Interface really work out  
>> the API details.
>>
>> -Grant
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>

------------------------------------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.grantingersoll.com/
http://lucene.grantingersoll.com
http://www.paperoftheweek.com/



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