lucy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David E. Wheeler" <>
Subject Re: [lucy-dev] RegexTokenizer
Date Wed, 09 Mar 2011 17:43:20 GMT
On Mar 8, 2011, at 7:56 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:

> Like how we're sneaking namespaces into Lucy's C code via prefixes? :)  Or how
> we jammed namespaces into JavaScript via objects back in our OpenJSAN 
> days?  :)

For languages that don't have namespaces, you do what'cha gotta do.

> I don't think it's a good idea for Lucy's class hierarchy to be organized
> differently for each host language binding.  (That seems like the logical
> extrapolation of your remark, though I believe you intended to express an
> ideal rather than make a concrete recommendation.)

No, not differently, just more naturally. So what might be Lucy::Tokenizer::Regex in Perl
might be LucyRegexRecognizer elsewhere.

> Since the class hierarchy must be shared, its design has to balance many
> competing interests and work well across the gamut of hosts.  What we have now
> doesn't violate anybody's language rules or conventions to the best of my
> knowledge.  It's internally consistent, and works OK for our C code.


> It's technically doable.  
> Still, Lucy's namespacing scheme and class hierarchy have been been mulled
> over very hard over a very long time.  When renaming Lucy::Analysis::Tokenizer
> to something else, we should strive to operate within the existing
> conventions.

Agreed. Which is why you should ignore my ignorant ass.

> Upending the existing hierarchy and changing the rules would be a much larger
> undertaking.  It's not even worth contemplating without someone willing to do
> the work -- and I rather suspect that such a volunteer would become frustrated
> quickly by all the concerns I'd raise as someone who works on Lucy's C code.


> There are two or three hundred classes in Lucy, and there will likely be
> hundreds more in time.  I think we should be conservative about what we put at
> the second level of the hierarchy, so that scanning any one directory with the
> naked eye produces sensible results.

Sure, but not *that* conservative. Oh, and 100s of classes? Yow!

> We inherited all the dirs under Lucy except for Lucy/Plan and Lucy/Object from
> Lucene.  IMO the organization has served us pretty well.

Great, I'll STFU then!

>> But I'm very late to this discussion, so feel free to ignore my ignorant
>> harping. :-)
> I see your smiley, but I'll emphasize this anyway: we're definitely not
> ignoring your suggestion even if we don't adopt it.

Clearly. You're too kind.


View raw message