lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Grant Ingersoll <>
Subject Re: Lucene's default settings & back compatibility
Date Wed, 20 May 2009 11:02:42 GMT

On May 19, 2009, at 1:51 PM, Michael McCandless wrote:
> I think you've moved onto discussing something different: should we
> relax our back compat policy.  I'm all for that discussion, but it's
> different from "given our back compat policy, how can we implement it
> w/o harming new users of Lucene".

I don't agree.  Your proposing to go off and do a bunch of work to  
"fix the back compat" problem that has to do with our policies, not  
with our code.  In reality if were more pragmatic about back compat.  
there would be less of a need for it.

Sure, maybe it would still make sense to be able to emulate a certain  
setting from a version, but with a more relaxed back compat it might  
not even be possible to do that b/c the old code doesn't even exist  
and the user has no choice (well, they can not upgrade) but to use the  
better way b/c, as you pointed out, we want people to have the best  
possible experience with Lucene.  For instance, deprecated code could  
easily be removed sooner by saying:  @deprecated Will be removed in  
Version X.Y.  Use Z instead.   Seriously, it's May of '09 and we have  
deprecated constructors on IndexWriter that have been that way since  
January of 2008.  And, at the rate we're getting to 2.9 and 3.0, it  
will be 2010 before they are even removed.


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

View raw message