lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shai Erera <>
Subject Re: modularization discussion
Date Tue, 03 May 2011 17:29:38 GMT
On the namespace, since Yonik seems concerned about it, and others
aren't (I think?), why don't we leave everything factored out of Solr
under the under org.apache.solr namespace?
Anyone object to that approach?

I don't like that approach. Two years from now, if indeed your vision
becomes the reality (obviously, not everyone think like you), what would
o.a.solr mean? Who will remember that 'suggest' (just picking an example)
came from Solr? Who'd care?

Why, when I will integrate several modules together, will I need to see
o.a.lucene on some, and o.a.solr on others, when both come from the same
distro (even same tar.gz file, e.g. modules)?

What makes sense, at least to me, is that either we call everything
o.a.lucene and solr becomes o.a.lucene.solr (I know I've probably pissed off
some people with that, sorry), or we come up w/ a new namespace (proposed by
Grant I think) o.a.lusolr. If we go with the second, then we'll have 3
* o.a.lucene for core Lucene stuff (e.g. Lucene core, benchmark?)
* o.a.solr for pure/core Solr stuff
* o.a.lusolr for shared modules.

Picking a good package name is important. And deciding to call everything
that came from Solr o.a.solr, just to not offend someone, is not the right
way to do things, at least IMO.

Mike, I do share with you the vision you outline, and I believe many of us
do. It will become a reality if we factor out modules from Solr and Lucene
under /modules. It can also become a reality if someone simply contributes
under /modules alternative packages for e.g. faceting, suggest, spellcheck
etc. If those are good packages, I doubt "Solr" would be reluctant to adopt

Either way, it's the community that will dictate the future of itself, and
not individuals. Perhaps we should stop discussing what can possibly happen,
and start doing things. Actions get more results than endless threads. This
have been stated on this thread numerous times -- if a contribution is good,
well coded, designed, thought of, it will go in. Whether it's a refactoring
of something, or a completely new code. I doubt there are people on this
community that can stand in the way of it.


On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 8:11 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:

View raw message