lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Factor out a standalone, shared analysis package for Nutch/Solr/Lucene?
Date Mon, 01 Mar 2010 14:33:58 GMT

On Mar 1, 2010, at 6:28 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:

> 
> On Feb 28, 2010, at 9:05 PM, Michael Busch wrote:
> 
>> On 2/28/10 4:30 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>>> 
>> 
>> I was really happy about the original idea of having a separate analyzer module (or
subproject, library, whatever name it'd have), because analysis seems quite separate from
indexing/search. Separating the two seems logical. And why not release such an analyzer package
more frequently than Lucene. Different pieces of code don't all move with the same pace. It'd
be nice to have the freedom of releasing an analyzer library after e.g. a new language was
added, maybe even only two weeks after the previous release. IMO more modular release cycles
is a better way to go than this new proposal.
> 
> Yeah, but you know the Analyzers are just the start.  Next it's faceting, then some other
piece, b/c let's all face facts: Solr is more or less what you build when you build a Lucene
search application.  People say the don't want all the "bloat" (AFAICT, what they really mean
is they prefer their own bloat, since every implementation I ever see of Lucene looks damn
well a lot like Solr and I've seen _a lot_ of implementations).  So, to me, why not just get
it over with?  One of the outcomes of it, could easily be that Solr is more modular anyway,
meaning people can pick and choose more what they want (although they already can).
> 

But, like Mark said, even w/ such a proposed move, people can still happily keep their "bloated"
code, too!  So, don't take me as implying we would be forcing it on everyone.  So, all those
other 3rd party sub projects would still be just fine.

-Grant
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message