Mailing-List: contact general-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of simon.willnauer@googlemail.com
 designates 209.85.220.219 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=googlemail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id
         :subject:from:to:content-type;
        b=GSpQIpUXMhVOlJJHnv5RoRYAZ+Ak0fZ1LCe0WaFxrr1L1LujZv8xEdO4j7FVZhTPOz
         T0TpsHlVCE6YYhBTq8S38VTnhFNXXJNZ7wn3ZBnQLmHSmdfEalB0wjiHYnqPjCo1AHbw
         SAseTv2RfSnFoyW2ifRPhSJUAmbXC6e9OmaKo=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: simon.willnauer@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <60E5D2D4-ABC7-45AE-8D2C-8E199708D813@apache.org>
References: <00e601caa5f8$45ab5810$d1020830$@edu>
	 <60E5D2D4-ABC7-45AE-8D2C-8E199708D813@apache.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 09:06:40 +0100
Message-ID: <f18c9dde1002050006u23f5a203rfb66f84380dc0275@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: A Question About Lucene
From: Simon Willnauer <simon.willnauer@googlemail.com>
To: general@lucene.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 3:05 AM, Grant Ingersoll <gsingers@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Feb 4, 2010, at 7:15 PM, Mohammed Aziz Parande wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> I am a graduate student in the Department of Information Systems at the
>> University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC). I am doing research in the
>> area of software engineering. I would very much appreciate if you could
>> answer the following questions of mine:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. I was wondering if Lucene has gone under any major restructuring/redesign
>> initiative in its history. Restructuring/redesign initiative can be defined
>> as a concerted effort during a time period in which major changes were
>> applied to the code base to improve software architecture/design while
>> little or no functional enhancement was made.
>
> Yes it has gone under a restructuring, but it also had other improvements added.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. If the project has gone under such an initiative, then would it be
>> possible for you to give the dates or revision/release numbers that are
>> "right before" and "right after" this structuring effort? I would like to
>> checkout the source code from the repository to compare structural
>> measurements that belong to "before" and "after" snapshots. Note that the
>> dates and revision/release numbers should be right before and right after
>> the initiative because I would like to be able to isolate and observe the
>> effects of this effort.
>>
>
> See the 2.3.X releases, most notably the reworking of indexing.
In Lucene 2.9 a lot of changes have been introduced which touched
architecture (Analysis API from Token to Attribute, Per-Segment
Search) and at the same time changed runtime behaviour. Yet, with 2.9
you can observe how this was introduced with full backwards
compatibility  for the most parts of lucene.
You might find the Lucene 2.9 whitepaper from Lucid Imagination
helpful in gives you a rather high level technical overview of what is
new in 2.9 (http://www.lucidimagination.com/How-We-Can-Help/whitepaper).
For technical details you still have to go into the sources.

>
> HTH,
> Grant