Mailing-List: contact dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of earwin@gmail.com designates
 209.85.214.176 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=lpPmEm1mTSRuCBGPA0Tpfryaapy8ErDBU7kF5VN9xpPu1AdaZY3eplzHc9TAYBxNc9
         81Pn0bDKBNKZrypDiPlkZxyFr2Dol2zZS7S5tspIQRa7ImBbBRwryjk/BGm2a3T5UNXM
         AzqR0N16lQkzDN15ec5LkVOCH1qcyRwYqV3Dk=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimysUzxuPv9++Y12kaDmq3-iOOnj+v2RzxCjPuP@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimysUzxuPv9++Y12kaDmq3-iOOnj+v2RzxCjPuP@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 12:44:33 +0300
Message-ID: <AANLkTimLU_ssB7=nFcAQrZ++mQEiZkvaDfP93z43S1Sv@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Consolidate MP and LMP
From: Earwin Burrfoot <earwin@gmail.com>
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Actually, in trunk IW doesn't break on anything else.

There's one private no-longer-used method I forgot to delete on my
drop-all-deprecations spree.
And there's a block in addIndexes, that explicitly checks instanceof,
and only then casts to LMP.

I'm against consolidating MP and LMP. MP is a damn interface!
We should strive to make things less coupled rather than other way around.

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 12:25, Shai Erera <serera@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> While IndexWriter declares it accepts a general MP, it will actually fail=
 if
> the given instance is not LogMP. So I wonder if we shouldn't consolidate
> both of them into one, and pull up all of LMP features to MP. I think all=
 of
> LMP's features are useful for any kind of MP, and if someone wants to ign=
ore
> them he still can.
>
> This is not the sort of change that fits well in trunk. IMO it can fit we=
ll
> in 3x too since IW didn't accept anything that is not LMP. So even if it
> will appear we're breaking back-compat, we actually won't. Which is anoth=
er
> reason, for me, why those two should be consolidated.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Shai
>


--=20
Kirill Zakharenko/=D0=9A=D0=B8=D1=80=D0=B8=D0=BB=D0=BB =D0=97=D0=B0=D1=85=
=D0=B0=D1=80=D0=B5=D0=BD=D0=BA=D0=BE (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