lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Question about CompressingCodec
Date Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:17:47 GMT
Hi Shai,

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Shai Erera <serera@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> what if we made it a non-test class, which takes any Codec to wrap (i.e.
> not default to Lucene41Codec)?
>

What would be the benefits of having this class vs. extending FilterCodec?


> 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 ...
>

Given that this class is @lucene.experimental, I think we could do the
following when modifying the file format:
 - if backward compatibility is easy to maintain, just bump the version
number
 - otherwise copy all the logic to Lucene41StoredFieldsFormat (instead of
making Lucene41StoredFieldsFormat extend CompressingStoredFieldsFormat) and
we can then change anything we want in CompressingStoredFieldsFormat
without worrying about backward compatibility.

-- 
Adrien

Mime
View raw message