lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simon Willnauer <simon.willna...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: Factor out a standalone, shared analysis package for Nutch/Solr/Lucene?
Date Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:57:53 GMT
Mike, thanks for moving out of the JIRA issue. For completeness I just
add the link to the issue where this thread started though. -->
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2279

I also think we need a solution for this problem but it does not seem
to be that easy. Would moving the analysis be compatible with the
lucene core having no dependencies? Not that I do not favor that
solution I really think we should move all that out but I'm not sure
about the place for this to live.

My first impression would be a lucene contrib module but that would
raise other issues like all solr committers then need access to that
contrib. A new project would surely make sense but is also quite an
overhead isn't it?!

simon
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Michael Busch <buschmic@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1! I think that's the way to go. It's also confusing currently that some
> analysers are in Lucene's core jar, and that there is an additional contrib
> analysis jar. Your proposal would solve this problem too.
>
>  Michael
>
> On Feb 24, 2010, at 8:32 AM, Michael McCandless <lucene@mikemccandless.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I think, in order to stop duplicating our analysis code across
>> Nutch/Solr/Lucene, we should separate out the analyzers into a
>> standalone package, and maybe as its own sub-project under the Lucene
>> tlp?
>>
>> The goal would be eventually to have a single source for all our
>> analysis needs, and for all Lucene projects to eventually cutover to
>> this source (deprecating their current analysis code).
>>
>> We could also at this time fix some of the known problems in the
>> analysis APIs, eg that the Analyzer base class confusingly exposes
>> both non-reuse and reuse APIs, that not all Analyzers are final, etc.
>>
>> What do people think...?
>>
>> Mike
>

Mime
View raw message