lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Yonik Seeley <>
Subject Re: modularization discussion
Date Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:25:14 GMT
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 6:28 AM, Michael McCandless
<> wrote:
> Why impose namespace restrictions based on where code was originally
> committed?  I think the namespace of refactored code should reflect
> the nature of the code, not its original origins?

And if it's a very core part of solr that we've tended to hang a lot of
new features on, etc, then the nature of that code should still
hopefully be "solrish".

> For example, when I refactored UnInvertedField, it split nicely into a
> Solr piece and a core Lucene piece, and so I gave the core Lucene
> piece then org.apache.lucene.index namespace.

That's because it was factored directly into Lucene-core, not into a module.

> I think leaving refactored code in the solr namespace sends the wrong
> message (ie, that this module "depends" on Solr somehow).  The lucene
> namespace makes it clear that it only depends on Lucene.

But that won't be true... it's likely that many modules will depend on other

But as I said... it seems only fair to meet half way and use the solr namespace
for some modules and the lucene namespace for others.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message