Hi, But is it really about unpleasant names or about incorrect/misleading names? If I were a developer and came across a class named MorphlineSolrSink I'd never think I could use it to pump events into anything other than Solr. And if I read the docs that said otherwise I'd be confused and would likely come to the mailing list for help (like I did, I guess).
Why can't the existing code be @deprecated? Wouldn't that solve backwards compatibility issue over the next 2 releases? Thanks, Otis -- Performance Monitoring * Log Analytics * Search Analytics Solr & Elasticsearch Support * http://sematext.com/ On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:30 AM, Wolfgang Hoschek <[email protected]> wrote: > Breaking backwards compat isn't an option for enterprise customers, > especially if the only gain is making a bunch of names a little more pleasant. > > Wolfgang. > > On Nov 11, 2013, at 8:56 PM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Hm, I don't get something here. The class name is misleading/wrong, >> no? Why not go through the usual deprecation steps to avoid breaking >> anything during the next release and then remove the >> misnamed/misplaced classes completely? >> >> Also, I don't know enough about this code to understand fully why any >> code here would need to ship without (unit) tests... >> >> While people could use MorphlineSolrSink even if they are not using it >> with Solr, wouldn't that be a little.... messy? :) >> >> Thanks, >> Otis >> -- >> Performance Monitoring * Log Analytics * Search Analytics >> Solr & Elasticsearch Support * http://sematext.com/ >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Roshan Naik <[email protected]> wrote: >>> imho...would be nice if the code changes were done... but renaming it in >>> the user guide (without changing FQCNs) can be done regardless. and perhaps >>> more impt from a user perspective.. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Wolfgang Hoschek >>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> Yep, the names are a bit misleading now that so much has been generalized, >>>> but whatever we do, breaking backwards compat isn't an option. Shipping a >>>> sink without tests doesn't seem compelling to me either. >>>> >>>> Taste in names aside, as far as I can see you could use this sink for ES >>>> today without any issues. >>>> >>>> Wolfgang. >>>> >>>> On Nov 11, 2013, at 4:00 PM, Hari Shreedharan wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Otis, >>>>> >>>>> I don’t mind doing any of that - but the problem is that such a change >>>> could impact backward compatibility - so we’d need to keep the stubs around >>>> even though the actual functionality might be elsewhere. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Hari >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Monday, November 11, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for the info, everyone. >>>>>> Yes, I noticed after my email that Blob* classes were in the process >>>>>> of being moved. >>>>>> Here is what I feel should really be done: >>>>>> >>>>>> * get rid of ....solr.morphline package and move the code to >>>>>> ...morphpline package >>>>>> * get rid of any Solr-specific code (I guess just in the tests >>>>>> Wolfgang mentioned) >>>>>> * rename the sink to MorphlineSink >>>>>> >>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>> >>>>>> Re loadElasticSearch() - yes, I see Wolfgang saw I opened an issue for >>>>>> that in CDK. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Otis >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Performance Monitoring * Log Analytics * Search Analytics >>>>>> Solr & Elasticsearch Support * http://sematext.com/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Roshan Naik >>>>>> <[email protected](mailto: >>>> [email protected])> wrote: >>>>>>> We should consider rename the Morphline Solr Sink to Morphline sink in >>>> the >>>>>>> docs to avoid any possibility of misleading end users. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE >>>>>>> NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or >>>> entity to >>>>>>> which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, >>>>>>> privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the >>>> reader >>>>>>> of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified >>>> that >>>>>>> any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or >>>>>>> forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have >>>>>>> received this communication in error, please contact the sender >>>> immediately >>>>>>> and delete it from your system. Thank You. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE >>> NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to >>> which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, >>> privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader >>> of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that >>> any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or >>> forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have >>> received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately >>> and delete it from your system. Thank You. >
