lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shai Erera <ser...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Proposal about Version API "relaxation"
Date Thu, 15 Apr 2010 21:13:04 GMT
By all means Robert ... by all means :). Remember who started that thread,
and for what reason :D.

Shai

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you really believe this. then you have no problem if i remove all
> Version from all core and contrib analyzers right now.
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Shai Erera <serera@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Robert ... I'm sorry but changes to Analyzers don't *force* people to
>> reindex. They can simply choose not to use the latest version. They can
>> choose not to upgrade a Unicode version. They can copy the entire Analyzer
>> code to match their needs. Index format changes is what I'm worried about
>> because that *forces* people to reindex.
>>
>> Analyzers, believe it or not, are just a tool, an out of the box tool
>> even, we're giving users to analyze their stuff. Probably a tool used by
>> most of our users, but not all. Some have their own tools, that are
>> currently wrapped as a Lucene Analyzer just because the API mandates. But we
>> were talking about that too recently no? Ripping Analyzer off IndexWriter?
>>
>> Just to be clear - I think your work on Analyzers is fantastic ! Really !
>> Seriously !
>> But it's a choice someone can make ... whereas index format is a given -
>> you have to live with it, or never upgrade Lucene.
>>
>> But I think we've chewed that way too much. I am all for removing bw on
>> Analyzers, and 2396 is a great step towards it (or maybe it is IT?). Even
>> index format - I don't see when it will change next (but I think I have an
>> idea ...), so we can tackle it then.
>>
>> Shai
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Shai Erera <serera@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actually, I'd like to know if people like Robert (basically those who
>>>> have no problem to reindex and don't understand the fuss around it) will
>>>> want to change the index format - can I count on them to be asked to provide
>>>> such tool? That's to me a policy we should decide on ... whatever the
>>>> consequences.
>>>>
>>>
>>> just look at the 1.8MB of backwards compat code in contrib/analyzers i
>>> want to remove in LUCENE-2396?
>>> are you serious? I wrote most of that cruft to prevent reindexing and you
>>> are trying to say I "don't understand the fuss about it"?
>>>
>>> We shouldnt make people reindex, but we should have the chance, even if
>>> we only do it ONE TIME, to reset Lucene to a new "Major Version" that has a
>>> bunch of stuff fixed we couldnt fix before, and more flexibility.
>>>
>>> because with the current policy, its like we are in 1.x forever.... our
>>> version numbers are a joke!
>>> --
>>> Robert Muir
>>> rcmuir@gmail.com
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Robert Muir
> rcmuir@gmail.com
>

Mime
View raw message