| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Robert Muir | Apr 26, 2011 8:07 pm | |
| Yonik Seeley | Apr 26, 2011 8:34 pm | |
| Grant Ingersoll | Apr 26, 2011 8:41 pm | |
| Chris Male | Apr 26, 2011 9:12 pm | |
| Robert Muir | Apr 26, 2011 9:14 pm | |
| Michael McCandless | Apr 27, 2011 3:27 am | |
| Michael McCandless | Apr 27, 2011 3:36 am | |
| Mark Miller | Apr 27, 2011 5:12 am | |
| Robert Muir | Apr 27, 2011 5:33 am | |
| Steven A Rowe | Apr 27, 2011 6:18 am | |
| Yonik Seeley | Apr 27, 2011 6:24 am | |
| Steven A Rowe | Apr 27, 2011 6:48 am | |
| Michael McCandless | Apr 27, 2011 8:49 am | |
| Grant Ingersoll | Apr 27, 2011 5:50 pm | |
| Yonik Seeley | Apr 27, 2011 6:23 pm | |
| Greg Stein | Apr 27, 2011 8:44 pm | |
| Grant Ingersoll | May 2, 2011 3:11 pm | |
| Ryan McKinley | May 2, 2011 4:31 pm | |
| Mark Miller | May 2, 2011 7:27 pm | |
| Michael McCandless | May 3, 2011 9:49 am | |
| Michael McCandless | May 3, 2011 9:55 am | |
| Mark Miller | May 3, 2011 10:11 am | |
| Shai Erera | May 3, 2011 10:29 am | |
| Ryan McKinley | May 3, 2011 10:31 am | |
| Mark Miller | May 3, 2011 10:46 am | |
| Michael McCandless | May 4, 2011 5:25 am | |
| Mark Miller | May 4, 2011 6:10 am | |
| Robert Muir | May 4, 2011 6:29 am | |
| Uwe Schindler | May 4, 2011 6:41 am | |
| Mark Miller | May 4, 2011 6:49 am | |
| Simon Willnauer | May 4, 2011 7:01 am | |
| Simon Willnauer | May 5, 2011 1:15 am | |
| Grant Ingersoll | May 5, 2011 7:25 am | |
| Mark Miller | May 5, 2011 7:40 am | |
| Simon Willnauer | May 5, 2011 8:03 am | |
| Grant Ingersoll | May 5, 2011 8:34 am | |
| Jason Rutherglen | May 5, 2011 9:58 am | |
| Chris Hostetter | May 6, 2011 1:35 pm | |
| Mark Miller | May 6, 2011 1:44 pm | |
| Michael McCandless | May 7, 2011 3:30 am | |
| Simon Willnauer | May 7, 2011 3:34 am | |
| Michael McCandless | May 7, 2011 3:45 am | |
| Michael McCandless | May 7, 2011 4:01 am | |
| Simon Willnauer | May 7, 2011 4:10 am | |
| Grant Ingersoll | May 7, 2011 5:20 am |
| Subject: | Re: modularization discussion | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Robert Muir (rcm...@gmail.com) | |
| Date: | Apr 26, 2011 9:14:07 pm | |
| List: | org.apache.lucene.solr-dev | |
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsin...@apache.org> wrote:
I think this needs a bit more explanation. AIUI, the primary cause for concern
is that by making something a module, you are taking a private, internal API of
Solr's and now making it a public API that must be maintained (and backwards
maintained) which could slow down development as one now needs to be concerned
with more factors than you would if it were merely an implementation detail in
Solr.
Can we solve this? It seems like for lucene users, they currently only have this choice:
A. no access to feature X at all
but, couldn't they at least have this choice:
A. no access to feature X at all B. having access to some feature, but it has relaxed backwards compatibility to address the concern.
In other words, we could mark the api @experimental or whatever, and the user can choose not to use it from a lucene level if they don't want to deal with upgrade hassles.





