lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Earwin Burrfoot <ear...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: deprecating Versions
Date Mon, 29 Nov 2010 10:53:23 GMT
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 13:34, Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 2:50 AM, Earwin Burrfoot <earwin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> And for indexes:
>> * Index compatibility is guaranteed across two adjacent major
>> releases. eg 2.x -> 3.x, 3.x -> 4.x.
>>  That includes both binary compat - codecs, and semantic compat -
>> analyzers (if appropriate Version is used).
>> * Older releases are most probably unsupported.
>>  e.g. 4.x still supports shared docstores for reading, though never
>> writes them. 5.x won't read them either, so you'll have to at least
>> fully optimize your 3.x indexes when going through 4.x to 5.x.
>>
>
> Is it somehow possible i could convince everyone that all the
> analyzers we provide are simply examples?
> This way we could really make this a bit more reasonable and clean up
> a lot of stuff.
At the very least, you don't have to convince me. :)

> Seems like we really want to move towards a more declarative model
> where these are just config files... so only then it will ok for us to
> change them because they suddenly aren't suffixed with .java?!
No freakin' declarative models! That's the domain of Solr.
Though others might disagree and then happily store these declarations
within index, and then per-segment, making the mess even more messy
for the glory of backasswards compatibility.


-- 
Kirill Zakharenko/Кирилл Захаренко (earwin@gmail.com)
Phone: +7 (495) 683-567-4
ICQ: 104465785

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message