Mailing-List: contact dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Subject: Document aware analyzers was Re: deprecating Versions
From: Grant Ingersoll <gsingers@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=VhKxD3jNh1DgqtxfEYZQ1kF4AUGroQ6qvq-u4@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 08:01:50 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1B9DCC29-7901-46DC-BD12-D9E6ECBD42AA@apache.org>
References: <AANLkTime=giKjdHF+QnP+YpNCLqt4MQWDqzvhjufUP1c@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTi=PH2-GPgUGpJ9yA4J6zLP2FoqEGtP9SXk504xb@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTimHKOsHAZGK20buDe=F_BS1BdSfaU1=XcmXxvuX@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTi=VhKxD3jNh1DgqtxfEYZQ1kF4AUGroQ6qvq-u4@mail.gmail.com>
To: dev@lucene.apache.org


On Nov 29, 2010, at 5:34 AM, Robert Muir 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.
>>=20
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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?!

While we are at it, how about we make the Analysis process document =
aware instead of Field aware?  The PerFieldAnalyzerWrapper, while doing =
exactly what it says it does, is just silly.  If you had an analysis =
process that was aware, if it chooses to be, of the document as a whole =
then you open up a whole lot more opportunity for doing interesting =
analysis while losing nothing towards the individual treatment of =
fields.  The TeeSink stuff is an attempt at this, but it is not =
sufficient.

Just a thought,
Grant=

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