atom feed45 messages in org.apache.lucene.solr-devRe: modularization discussion
FromSent OnAttachments
Robert MuirApr 26, 2011 8:07 pm 
Yonik SeeleyApr 26, 2011 8:34 pm 
Grant IngersollApr 26, 2011 8:41 pm 
Chris MaleApr 26, 2011 9:12 pm 
Robert MuirApr 26, 2011 9:14 pm 
Michael McCandlessApr 27, 2011 3:27 am 
Michael McCandlessApr 27, 2011 3:36 am 
Mark MillerApr 27, 2011 5:12 am 
Robert MuirApr 27, 2011 5:33 am 
Steven A RoweApr 27, 2011 6:18 am 
Yonik SeeleyApr 27, 2011 6:24 am 
Steven A RoweApr 27, 2011 6:48 am 
Michael McCandlessApr 27, 2011 8:49 am 
Grant IngersollApr 27, 2011 5:50 pm 
Yonik SeeleyApr 27, 2011 6:23 pm 
Greg SteinApr 27, 2011 8:44 pm 
Grant IngersollMay 2, 2011 3:11 pm 
Ryan McKinleyMay 2, 2011 4:31 pm 
Mark MillerMay 2, 2011 7:27 pm 
Michael McCandlessMay 3, 2011 9:49 am 
Michael McCandlessMay 3, 2011 9:55 am 
Mark MillerMay 3, 2011 10:11 am 
Shai EreraMay 3, 2011 10:29 am 
Ryan McKinleyMay 3, 2011 10:31 am 
Mark MillerMay 3, 2011 10:46 am 
Michael McCandlessMay 4, 2011 5:25 am 
Mark MillerMay 4, 2011 6:10 am 
Robert MuirMay 4, 2011 6:29 am 
Uwe SchindlerMay 4, 2011 6:41 am 
Mark MillerMay 4, 2011 6:49 am 
Simon WillnauerMay 4, 2011 7:01 am 
Simon WillnauerMay 5, 2011 1:15 am 
Grant IngersollMay 5, 2011 7:25 am 
Mark MillerMay 5, 2011 7:40 am 
Simon WillnauerMay 5, 2011 8:03 am 
Grant IngersollMay 5, 2011 8:34 am 
Jason RutherglenMay 5, 2011 9:58 am 
Chris HostetterMay 6, 2011 1:35 pm 
Mark MillerMay 6, 2011 1:44 pm 
Michael McCandlessMay 7, 2011 3:30 am 
Simon WillnauerMay 7, 2011 3:34 am 
Michael McCandlessMay 7, 2011 3:45 am 
Michael McCandlessMay 7, 2011 4:01 am 
Simon WillnauerMay 7, 2011 4:10 am 
Grant IngersollMay 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.