lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Otis Gospodnetic <otis_gospodne...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Lucene 2.9 Again
Date Thu, 25 Jun 2009 04:27:05 GMT

Me, too.  I noticed Grant mentioned this in one of the long emails/threads, too, a few weeks
back, but I didn't want to pull out just that piece and disturb the thread.  And I bet people
outside Lucene would love to have search-independent set of chainable tokenizers, token filters,
and such.


Otis
--
Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch



----- Original Message ----
> From: Michael McCandless <lucene@mikemccandless.com>
> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 10:04:10 AM
> Subject: Re: Lucene 2.9 Again
> 
> I agree.
> 
> I'm picturing some hopefully-not-that-distant future when we have a
> queries "module" and analysis "module" that live quite separately from
> Lucene & Solr's "core", and committers from both Solr and Lucene would
> work on it.
> 
> Mike
> 
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Grant Ingersollwrote:
> >
> > On Jun 17, 2009, at 4:42 AM, Michael McCandless wrote:
> >
> >> I would love to see function queries consolidated between Solr and
> >> Lucene!  I think it's a prime example of duplicated and then diverged
> >> sources between Lucene and Solr...
> >
> > The primary reason it's diverged is it gets a lot of attention on Solr and
> > near zero in Lucene.  You rarely see someone on java-user ask about function
> > queries.  In Solr, it's a regular solution to many problems.  So, just like
> > the analysis problem, it strikes me as one of those areas that if it is
> > going to be done, and maintained, then Solr committers need write access.
> >
> > -Grant

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