lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Busch <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Break Back Compatibility "Contract" on Fieldable
Date Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:58:46 GMT
+1 to all three items. This is good stuff.


Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> As they say, rules are meant to be broken...
> For a variety of reasons, some outlined below, I (and others) would like 
> us to break our back compatibility requirements and allow for modifying 
> the Fieldable interface in 2.x releases with the 3.x plan to be to 
> separate out write side interfaces from read side interfaces per Hoss' 
> suggestion in 
> Our reasons are based on LUCENE-1340, LUCENE-1219 and 
> Simply put, my gut says there are almost no implementations of Fieldable 
> "in the wild", and those that are won't mind a few lines of code change 
> here and there to accommodate Fieldable changing (since Fields really 
> are just simple data structures and don't due much algorithmically, 
> except maybe LazyField)
> Thus, here's the vote part:
> 1. We mark Fieldable as being subject to change.  We heavily advertise 
> (on java-dev and java-user and maybe general) that in the next minor 
> release of Lucene (2.4), Fieldable will be changing.  It is also marked 
> at the top of CHANGES.txt very clearly for all the world to see.  Since 
> 2.4 is probably at least a month away, I think this gives anyone with a 
> pulse enough time to react.
> 2. We thus allow 1340 and 1219 to go forward, and maybe some others.
> 3. [OPTIONAL] We commit to rethinking input Documents and output 
> Documents for 3.x per Hoss' design suggestions in the email thread 
> above.  At a minimum, it becomes an abstract base class.
> +1 to all 3 items from me.
> -Grant
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message