lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: New Token API was Re: Payloads and TrieRangeQuery
Date Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:45:34 GMT
Mark, I'll see if I can get tests produced for some of those analyzers.

as a new user of the new api myself, I think I can safely say the most
confusing thing about it is having the old deprecated API mixed in the
javadocs with it :)

On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Mark Miller<markrmiller@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>



-- 
Robert Muir
rcmuir@gmail.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