Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of serera@gmail.com designates
 209.85.219.227 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=bjeC2KWAD+APpxKgZCk0uG56DI7K1DCox829uKkF9xAoqCL/g6u1Z5ncoxTtg9C9uH
         L7A35cGx/vTgjJKQ3gR+ID4Dt2qZVjAMk2GnYUvu/FKMpB6hZizzfOk5CU74sY7Ocm7j
         DKnnvT2uyX6wM8nj4KfbfqYq6qzYp+JRThnDg=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4A359AB6.5010809@gmail.com>
References: <85d3c3b60906091932i591ef6f4gcc950586b15d4506@mail.gmail.com>
	 <9ac0c6aa0906120920y2b187a75x9a3be9b41b88e9b7@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1B6771E9-0F2A-44A3-AF69-21BDBD2E1319@apache.org>
	 <9ac0c6aa0906130558v28074b43q61ebd0104538f7a9@mail.gmail.com>
	 <c68e39170906130809k5a8e784bh6cc6a7c7572ac1c7@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4A34614C.7000004@gmail.com>
	 <3276E8A9-84A5-415A-A25A-39EDB39DFC38@apache.org>
	 <4A35902C.8010201@gmail.com> <4A3599CD.2060308@gmail.com>
	 <4A359AB6.5010809@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 06:41:37 +0300
Message-ID: <786fde50906142041h5ba38060jde03acff7a2ca0e4@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: New Token API was Re: Payloads and TrieRangeQuery
From: Shai Erera <serera@gmail.com>
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6db66fad9d606046c5ad540

--0016e6db66fad9d606046c5ad540
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The "old" API is deprecated, and therefore when we release 2.9 there might
be some people who'd think they should move away from it, to better prepare
for 3.0 (while in fact this many not be the case). Also, we should make sure
that when we remove all the deprecations, this will still exist (and
therefore, why deprecate it now?), if we think this should indeed be kept
around for at least a while longer.

I personally am all for keeping it around (it will save me a huge
refactoring of an Analyzer package I wrote), but I have to admit it's only
because I've got quite comfortable with the existing API, and did not have
the time to try the new one yet.

Shai

On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 3:49 AM, Mark Miller <markrmiller@gmail.com> wrote:

> Mark Miller wrote:
>
>> I don't know how I feel about rolling the new token api back.
>>
>> I will say that I originally had no issue with it because I am very
>> excited about Lucene-1458.
>>
>> At the same time though, I'm thinking Lucene-1458 is a very advanced issue
>> that will likely be for really expert usage (though I can see benefits
>> falling to general users).
>>
>> I'm slightly iffy about making an intuitive api much less intuitive for an
>> expert future feature that hasn't fully materialized in Lucene yet. It
>> almost seems like that fight should weigh towards general usage and standard
>> users.
>>
>> I don't have a better proposal though, nor the time to consider it at the
>> moment. I was just more curious if anyone else had any thoughts. I hadn't
>> realized Grant had asked a similar question not long ago
>> with no response. Not sure how to take that, but I'd think that would
>> indicate less problems with people than more. On the other hand, you don't
>> have to switch yet (with trunk) and we have yet to release it. I wonder how
>> many non dev, every day users have really had to tussle with the new API
>> yet. Not many people complaining too loudly at the moment though.
>>
>> Asking for a roll back seems a bit extreme without a little more support
>> behind it than we have seen.
>>
>> - Mark
>>
>
> PS
>
> I know you didnt ask for a rollback Grant - just kind of talking in a
> general manner. I see your point on getting the search side in, I'm just not
> sure I agree that it really matters if one hits before the other. Like Mike
> says, you don't
> have to switch to the new API yet.
>
> --
> - 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
>
>

--0016e6db66fad9d606046c5ad540
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">The &quot;old&quot; API is deprecated, and therefore when =
we release 2.9 there might be some people who&#39;d think they should move =
away from it, to better prepare for 3.0 (while in fact this many not be the=
 case). Also, we should make sure that when we remove all the deprecations,=
 this will still exist (and therefore, why deprecate it now?), if we think =
this should indeed be kept around for at least a while longer.<br>
<br>I personally am all for keeping it around (it will save me a huge refac=
toring of an Analyzer package I wrote), but I have to admit it&#39;s only b=
ecause I&#39;ve got quite comfortable with the existing API, and did not ha=
ve the time to try the new one yet.<br>
<br>Shai<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 3:49 AM,=
 Mark Miller <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:markrmiller@gmail.com"=
>markrmiller@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_=
quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt =
0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class=3D"im">Mark Miller wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, =
204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I don&#39;t know how I feel about rolling the new token api back.<br>
<br>
I will say that I originally had no issue with it because I am very excited=
 about Lucene-1458.<br>
<br>
At the same time though, I&#39;m thinking Lucene-1458 is a very advanced is=
sue that will likely be for really expert usage (though I can see benefits =
falling to general users).<br>
<br>
I&#39;m slightly iffy about making an intuitive api much less intuitive for=
 an expert future feature that hasn&#39;t fully materialized in Lucene yet.=
 It almost seems like that fight should weigh towards general usage and sta=
ndard users.<br>

<br>
I don&#39;t have a better proposal though, nor the time to consider it at t=
he moment. I was just more curious if anyone else had any thoughts. I hadn&=
#39;t realized Grant had asked a similar question not long ago<br>
with no response. Not sure how to take that, but I&#39;d think that would i=
ndicate less problems with people than more. On the other hand, you don&#39=
;t have to switch yet (with trunk) and we have yet to release it. I wonder =
how many non dev, every day users have really had to tussle with the new AP=
I yet. Not many people complaining too loudly at the moment though.<br>

<br>
Asking for a roll back seems a bit extreme without a little more support be=
hind it than we have seen.<br>
<br>
- Mark<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
PS<br>
<br>
I know you didnt ask for a rollback Grant - just kind of talking in a gener=
al manner. I see your point on getting the search side in, I&#39;m just not=
 sure I agree that it really matters if one hits before the other. Like Mik=
e says, you don&#39;t<br>

have to switch to the new API yet.<br><font color=3D"#888888">
<br>
-- <br>
- Mark<br>
<br>
<a href=3D"http://www.lucidimagination.com" target=3D"_blank">http://www.lu=
cidimagination.com</a></font><div><div></div><div class=3D"h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
---------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <a href=3D"mailto:java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apach=
e.org" target=3D"_blank">java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org</a><br>
For additional commands, e-mail: <a href=3D"mailto:java-dev-help@lucene.apa=
che.org" target=3D"_blank">java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org</a><br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>

--0016e6db66fad9d606046c5ad540--