lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andi Vajda <va...@osafoundation.org>
Subject Re: Proposal about Version API "relaxation"
Date Thu, 15 Apr 2010 19:50:02 GMT

On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, Robert Muir wrote:

> 
> 
> 2010/4/15 Michael McCandless <lucene@mikemccandless.com>
>
>       I realize the migration tool has issues -- it fixes the hard
>       changes
>       but silently allows the soft changes to break (ie, your
>       analyzers my
>       not produce the same tokens, until we move all core analyzers
>       outside
>       of core, so they are separately versioned), but it seems like a
>       good
>       compromise here?
> 
> 
> Well, lets consider doing that too. Since analyzers have this tough problem
> of being "soft changes", I propose the following:
> 1. get rid of version
> 2. minimize the interface between the indexer and analysis
> 3. put analyzers in their own versioned jar files.

Yes, every analyzer needs to have its own version and thus, jar file.
Putting all analyzers into one versioned jar file joins them at the hip and 
suffers from the same versioning and compat problems we're currently facing 
in core.

Andi..

> 
> this way, we could provide a realistic capability for users to use
> lucene-3.5.jar with lucene-3.2-analyzers.jar, and possibly have STRONGER
> analyzer back compat (e.g. if we minimize the damn thing enough, perhaps
> very old analyzers.jar's could even work across major releases).
> 
> its also much safer when you are using the same bytecodes you used before,
> instead of hairy back compat layers. I don't refer to Uwe's code here: its
> perfect, but we cant force Uwe into writing the back compat for every big
> feature.
> 
> --
> 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