lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marvin Humphrey <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development
Date Thu, 04 Mar 2010 15:43:42 GMT
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 06:54:33PM -0500, Mark Miller wrote:
> (though many responders appeared to be confused as to what most of us think
> the merge means, so who knows)

I went back to the post where Yonik broached the issue to try to understand
where my confusion arose.

I read this passage and took away the notion that Lucene would be absorbed
into Solr:

    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.

Yonik's email was followed up shortly by this, from Mike McCandless:

    I think this is a good idea!  LuSolr ;) (kidding)

I figured Mike was "kidding" about the name but +1 on absorbing.  Sigh.

Ah, but here's the sentence I missed from Yonik's original email:

    Lucene core would essentially remain as it is, but:

Feh.  Sloppy reading on my part.  Still, I don't think it's hard to understand
why some of us got the wrong idea.

Marvin Humphrey

View raw message