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 Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:15:25 GMT
+1

So many people ask me when Solr will have all the lucene features and
how quickly solr keeps up. If we can make it somehow I think it would
be a huge improvement. Except of mark millers resume :)

simon

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:11 PM, Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Michael McCandless <
> lucene@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Robert Muir
> rcmuir@gmail.com
>

Mime
View raw message