| 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: | Yonik Seeley (yon...@lucidimagination.com) | |
| Date: | Apr 26, 2011 8:34:08 pm | |
| List: | org.apache.lucene.solr-dev | |
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:07 PM, Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote:
It appears there are some problems with modularization of the code, especially between lucene and solr, so I would like for us to have a discussion on this thread.
The specifics of each case matter of course.
As a general point, lucene and solr merged as equals, and the domain of neither project was diminished by this. Refactored code is shared code and goes into modules. Some of the refactored code has been changed to use the lucene namespace, and it seems only fair that other code that has traditionally been the domain of Solr keep the solr namespace. This helps keep the proper mindset that code is not being moved "from solr to lucene" as too many people keep putting it, but it's being exposed to lucene users and is now shared.
As this relates to LUCENE-2883, I don't think there's really much disagreement. Factor out a function query module, and make it a Solr module (i.e. use the solr namespace) to set expectations appropriately, since this is still core solr code. All the function query goodness is exposed to lucene users w/o the full solr stack, and everyone is good! Someone does need to do the work though... there's been no patch.
-Yonik





