lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Wouter Heijke" <whei...@xs4all.nl>
Subject Re: lucene and solr trunk
Date Wed, 17 Mar 2010 08:51:28 GMT
I'm just a surprised observer that doesn't seems to get all the trouble
and need for this svn merge.

I have my own private Solr-like framework around Lucene. It uses maven to
build and nicely gets all dependencies to Lucene and Tika whenever I build
or release, no problem there and certainly no need to have it merged into
Lucene's svn!

Professionally i work on a (world-class) geocoder that also nicely depends
on Lucene by using maven, no problems there at all and no need to merge
that code in Lucene's svn!

Wouter

> But it's actually the reverse?  Solr depends on Lucene but not vice/versa.
>
> (If instead I proposed making Solr a subdir of Lucene then I'd agree....)
>
> So... if you checkout only lucene, you can cd there and do all you do
> today with Lucene ("ant test", "ant dist", "svn diff", etc.).
>
> If you checkout solr, you can cd there and "ant test" will run all of
> Lucene's and all of Solr's tests.  "svn diff" will include any changes
> to lucene and to solr.
>
> Ie this achieves want we want -- Solr to depend on Lucene but not vice
> versa, right?
>
> Mike
>
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Shai Erera <serera@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have to agree w/ Jake that putting Lucene under Solr gives the
>> impression
>> as if suddenly Lucene became dependent on it ... and for really no good
>> reasons. Are we making that decision to simplify the build of Solr? What
>> are
>> the problems Solr faces today w.r.t. its build and using a Lucene
>> release or
>> trunk revision?
>>
>> I didn't follow the Lucene/Solr merge on general@, because I didn't even
>> know such a beast exists. So I guess I'm missing something ...
>>
>> Shai
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Jake Mannix <jake.mannix@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Yonik Seeley <yonik@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Chiming in just a bit here - isn't there any concern that
>>>> independent
>>>> > of
>>>> > whether or not people "can"
>>>> > build lucene without checking out solr, the mere fact that Lucene
>>>> will
>>>> > be
>>>> > effectively a "subdirectory"
>>>> > of solr...  is there no concern that there will then be a perception
>>>> > that Lucene is a subproject of
>>>> > Solr, instead of vice-versa?
>>>>
>>>> Who would have this perception?
>>>> Casual users will be using downloads.
>>>
>>> Developers and dev managers at companies doing build vs. buy decisions
>>> regarding
>>> whether they will do one of the following:
>>> 1) pay big bucks to get FAST or whatever
>>> 2) use Solr (free/cheap!)
>>> 3) pay [variable] bucks to build their own with Lucene
>>> 4) pay [variable but high] to build their own from scratch
>>> I'm not concerned with casual downloaders.  I'm talking about the
>>> companies and people who
>>> may or may not be interested in making multi-million dollar decisions
>>> regarding using or
>>> not using Lucene or Solr.
>>>   -jake
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>



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