lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dennis Kubes <ku...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)
Date Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:45:33 GMT
True.  There are features that aren't useful for every search.  But the 
features in Lucene are meant for full text search, not for serving full 
text search.  Maybe faceting was a bad example, it was the first that 
came to mind and defines what many people use Solr for.

Lucene IMO is a full text search *library*.  When features are added to 
it, that is the perspective that should be taken.  Does it work as a 
general purpose indexing library?

I am all for adding in *very* useful features, especially when someone 
else has done the work, as long as they fall into that boundary.  But 
Solr isn't a search library, it is a search server.  Aren't those 
separate responsibilities?  Should we take some of the things out of 
Solr and put them into Lucene?  Absolutely.  Should we merge to do this. 
  No, not IMO.

And Power is good in the right hands, but that is another discussion :)

Dennis

Ted Dunning wrote:
> There are scads of features of Lucene that are not useful for all
> applications (payloads, for one example, back compatibility for another).
> 
> The point is that the option to use faceting or not would be *very* useful
> for all search applications.  Power is good, especially since somebody else
> has done the work already.
> 
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Dennis Kubes <kubes@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> Faceting for example, great feature, but not useful in every full text
>> search.
>>
> 

Mime
View raw message