lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erik Hatcher <>
Subject Re: lucene cutomized indexing
Date Tue, 20 Jul 2004 18:20:22 GMT
On Jul 20, 2004, at 2:10 PM, John Wang wrote:
>> I have already provided my opinion on this one - I think it would be
>> fine to allow Token to be public.  I'll let others respond to the
>> additional requests you've made.
> Great, what processes need to be in place before this gets in the code 
> base?

You're doing the right thing.  Although codebase details are most 
appropriate for the lucene-dev list.  And filing issues in Bugzilla 
ensures your requests do not get lost e-mail inboxes.

At this point, Lucene 1.4 has been released and Doug has put forth a 
proposal for Lucene 2.0 (with a migration path of a version 1.9 
intermediate release).  I'm not sure when the best time is to make this 
change.  We should put API changes to a VOTE on the lucene-dev list 
though.  In fact, I'll post a VOTE for Token now! :)

>> Then they should speak up :)
> Well, I AM speaking up. So have some other people in earlier emails.
> But alike me, are getting ignored.

You are not being ignored - not at all.  Look at the replies you've 
gotten already.

>  The HayStack changes were needed
> specifically due to the fact that many classes are declared to be
> final and not extensible.

Did they post their changes back?  Did they discuss them here?  I do 
not recall such discussions (although see above about being lost in 
e-mail inboxes - mine is swamped beyond belief).  Are there Bugzilla 
issues with their patches?

>> Making things extensible for no good reason is asking for maintenance
>> troubles later when you need more control internally.  Lucene has been
>> well designed from the start with extensibility only where it was
>> needed in mind.  It has evolved to be more open in very specific areas
>> after careful consideration of the performance impact has been 
>> weighed.
>>  "Breaking" is not really the concern with extensibility, I don't
>> think.  Real-world use cases are needed to show that changes need to 
>> be
>> made.
> I thought I gave many "real-world use cases" in the previous email.
> And evidently also applies to the Haystack project. What other
> information do we need to provide?

I was not referring to your requests in my comment, but rather a 
general comment regarding requests to make things "public" when quite 
sufficient alternatives exist.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message