lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Miller <>
Subject Re: modularization discussion
Date Wed, 04 May 2011 13:11:06 GMT

On May 4, 2011, at 8:25 AM, Michael McCandless wrote:

> Mark,
> Can you give some more details on your disagreement here...?
> Are there certain modules from my list that you don't think should be
> modules?  The timeframe (1-2 years) is too optimistic/aggressive?  Or
> you disagree that we should poach from outside projects too...?

I don't necessarily disagree with your goals - I'm just saying those are not my goals. 

I think just like minix vs linux (should I mention hurd for stallman?), there are tradeoffs
when trying to tackle some of these things modules style vs monolithic style. Yes, an OS is
not Lucene/Solr, I'm going for more connotation than anything here.

Now, if some people came in and just did things module style in a way that matches the monolithic
style (quality, feature wise), and they do that module after module, that is one thing. But
I think that is indeed a daunting task, and I think there are a lot of other things to focus
on. The end result is not even any guarantee - we seem just as likely to end up with a mess
of modules with all kinds of crazy interdependencies. It's really easy to say, yeah, everything
should be a module, sounds great, but there are large practical issues there. And from an
open source project perspective, it's all even harder to plan. That's why I'm so about case
by case.

I think poaching compatible license open source code is always okay.

> Or, more generally, you don't think Solr benefits from being opened up
> / modularized?

I think there would be benefits for many types of modules. And perhaps some downsides for
some depending on the developers involved and how long they stay involved, and some of the
interdependency issues that seem likely. Overall, I'm not terribly concerned about modules
- they are not on my short term priority list (Analyzers would be for sure though, thanks

On the one hand, you might think, well other Lucene users could take advantage of more of
this stuff - and I see that as something kind of nice myself - but they already can use this
stuff too - use Solr. So it's just not on the tip of my priority poll. I happily accept others
are more concerned about it.

To wrap up, like I've said a million times, I'm not against modules. I also just don't share
that same long term vision right now I guess.

Side note (plug): I have been playing with the benchmark module (who did that module? I had
missed it), and I've got some cool stuff to show at Berlin Buzzwords this year for my solr
performance talk!

> Mike
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Mark Miller <> wrote:
>> On May 3, 2011, at 12:49 PM, Michael McCandless wrote:
>>> Isn't this the future we are working towards?
>> No, not really. Others perhaps, but not me. I'm on board with some modules. I do
think there are tradeoffs when considering them and considering Lucene and Solr. I'm happy
to take everything one issue at a time.
>> When I voted to merge, no, I certainly was not thinking, I hope in a year or two
we have taken everything from Solr and made it a module. I did it for a few specific things
to start - analyzers for sure, perhaps some other things as people did something that made
sense. I did it so we could share some code more easily - not all code.
>> Others did it for their own reasons I assume.
>> But no - I'm not sure I have ever fully subscribed to what you are saying.
>> - Mark Miller
>> Lucene/Solr User Conference
>> May 25-26, San Francisco
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

- Mark Miller

Lucene/Solr User Conference
May 25-26, San Francisco

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

View raw message