lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Robert Muir (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-4007) many versioned documents could/should be in javadocs instead.
Date Sat, 21 Apr 2012 18:48:34 GMT


Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-4007:

Even if we don't decide to do this, we could at least enhance
the forrest site by linking to a few key javadocs pages. 

Take a look at the "getting started" page (which is mostly empty)
compared to
is also a good page to introduce the analysis api,

same goes with Similarity and a few other javadocs.

Basically in my opinion, the "versioned site" could just link to some of these pages (easy
to chainsaw the forrest), but if we don't want to go that route we can at least enhance it
to point 
to some of the really good docs we already have under javadocs so its not so sparse.

> many versioned documents could/should be in javadocs instead.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: LUCENE-4007
>                 URL:
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Task
>            Reporter: Robert Muir
> Looking at our forrested site, and trying to think about how we could move our versioned
> away from it, I think as a first step we should look at what really needs to be there.
> I think it easily becomes out of date and we don't have good centralized documentation
> stuff is split between javadocs and forrest.
> Couldn't queryparsersyntax.xml simply be in the overview/package for the queryparser?
> We could just link to that page from the forrest docs menu, then we could link to the
syntax from
> other places in the javadocs. 
> Furthermore, in that case we could link to other queryparser impls documentations (e.g.
> so it would probably be more useful.
> demo/demo2.xml could just be overview for the demo contrib? currently that one is useless:
> scoring.xml could be added to the package documentation of search or similarities or
somewhere that 
> makes more sense? currently its "almost javadocs" already, except harder to validate
none of these
> links are actually out of date: my best bet is a ton of them already are!
> i'll leave fileformats.xml aside for now, but with many different codec implementations
its something
> to think about for later too.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see:


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

View raw message