lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: New Token API was Re: Payloads and TrieRangeQuery
Date Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:53:06 GMT
Robert Muir wrote:
> Mark, I created an issue for this.
>   
Thanks Robert, great idea.
> I just think you know, converting an analyzer to the new api is really
> not that bad.
>   
I don't either. I'm really just complaining about the initial 
readability. Once you know whats up, its not too much different. I just 
have found myself
having to refigure out whats up (a short task to be sure) over again 
after I leave it for a while. With the old one, everything was just kind 
of immediately self evident.

That makes me think new users might be a little more confused when they 
first meet again. I'm not a new user though, so its only a guess really.
> reverse engineering what one of them does is not necessarily obvious,
> and is completely unrelated but necessary if they are to be migrated.
>
> I'd be willing to assist with some of this but I don't want to really
> work the issue if its gonna be a waste of time at the end of the
> day...
>   
The chances of this issue being fully reverted are so remote that I 
really wouldnt let that stop you ...
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Mark Miller<markrmiller@gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> Robert Muir wrote:
>>     
>>>> As Lucene's contrib hasn't been fully converted either (and its been
>>>> quite
>>>> some time now), someone has probably heard that groan before.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> hope this doesn't sound like a complaint,
>>>       
>> Complaints are fine in any case. Every now and then, it might cause a little
>> rant from me or something, but please don't let that dissuade you :)
>> Who doesnt like to rant and rave now and then. As long as thoughts and
>> opinions are coming out in a non negative way (which certainly includes
>> complaints),
>> I think its all good.
>>     
>>>  but in my opinion this is
>>> because many do not have any tests.
>>> I converted a few of these and its just grunt work but if there are no
>>> tests, its impossible to verify the conversion is correct.
>>>
>>>       
>> Thanks for pointing that out. We probably get lazy with tests, especially in
>> contrib, and this brings up a good point - we should probably push
>> for tests or write them before committing more often. Sometimes I'm sure it
>> just comes downto a tradeoff though - no resources at the time,
>> the class looked clear cut, and it was just contrib anyway. But then here we
>> are ... a healthy dose of grunt work is bad enough when you have tests to
>> check it.
>>
>> --
>> - Mark
>>
>> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>   


-- 
- Mark

http://www.lucidimagination.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