lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shai Erera <ser...@gmail.com>
Subject Question about CompressingCodec
Date Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:39:08 GMT
Hi

I looked at CompressingCodec and had a couple of questions until I realized
it's a test code only. I understand that creating a Codec class is not
favorable, because of back-compat issues (that may arise in the future), so
I'll ask that -- what if we made it a non-test class, which takes any Codec
to wrap (i.e. not default to Lucene41Codec)? I don't have any strong
feelings for or against it, so I'm ok if the general feeling is that we
should provide CompressingStoredFieldsFormat only.

While at that, should CompressingStoredFieldsFormat be named
CompressingStoredFieldsFormat41 or something like that, preparing it for
future changes? Or ... or we can add the version to the name only when it's
actually changed ...

Shai

Mime
View raw message