lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael McCandless <luc...@mikemccandless.com>
Subject Re: Factor out a standalone, shared analysis package for Nutch/Solr/Lucene?
Date Fri, 26 Feb 2010 20:20:58 GMT
I think this is a good idea!  LuSolr ;)  (kidding)

I agree with all of your points Yonik.

What do other people think...?

Mike

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Yonik Seeley <yonik@apache.org> wrote:
> I've started to think that a merge of Solr and Lucene would be in the
> best interest of both projects.
>
> Recently, Solr as pulled back from using Lucene trunk (or even the
> latest version), as the increased amount of change between releases
> (and in-between releases) made it impractical to deal with. This is a
> pretty big negative for Lucene, since Solr is the biggest Lucene user
> (where people are directly exposed to lucene for the express purpose
> of developing search features).  I know Solr development has always
> benefited hugely from users using trunk, and Lucene trunk has now lost
> all the solr users.
>
> Some in Lucene development have expressed a desire to make Lucene more
> of a complete solution, rather than just a core full-text search
> library... things like a data schema, faceting, etc.  The Lucene
> project already has an enterprise search platform with these
> features... that's Solr.  Trying to pull popular pieces out of Solr
> makes life harder for Solr developers, brings our projects into
> conflict, and is often unsuccessful (witness the largely failed
> migration of FunctionQueries from Solr to Lucene).  For Lucene to
> achieve the ultimate in usability for users, it can't require Java
> experience... it needs higher level abstractions provided by Solr.
>
> The other benefit to Lucene would be to bring features to developers
> much sooner... Solr has had features years before they were developed
> in Lucene, and currently has more developers working with it.  Esp
> with Solr not using Lucene trunk, if a Solr developer wants a feature
> quickly, they cannot add it to Lucene (even if it might make sense
> there) since that introduces a big unpredictable lag - when that
> version of Lucene make it's way into Solr.
>
> The current divide is a bit unnatural.  For maximum benefit of both
> projects, it seems like Solr and Lucene should essentially merge.
> Lucene core would essentially remain as it is, but:
> 1) Solr would go back to using Lucene's trunk
> 2) For new Solr features, there would be an effort to abstract it such
> that non-Solr users could use the functionality (faceting, field
> collapsing, etc)
> 3) For new Lucene features, there would be an effort to integrate it into Solr.
> 4) Releases would be synchronized... Lucene and Solr would release at
> the same time.
>
> -Yonik
>

Mime
View raw message