[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2167?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12909770#action_12909770
]
Steven Rowe commented on LUCENE-2167:
-------------------------------------
bq. One last question, it might be reasonable to move ClassicTokenizer and
friends to .classic package?
I agree with your arguments about moving to .classic package. I think new
users won't care about what StandardTokenizer/Analyzer used to be.
My only concern here is existing users' upgrade experience - users should be
able to continue using the ClassicTokenizer if they want to keep current
behavior. Right now, they can do that by setting Version to 3.0 in the
constructor to StandardTokenizer/Analyzer. I think this should remain the case
until Lucene version 5.0.
> Implement StandardTokenizer with the UAX#29 Standard
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-2167
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2167
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: contrib/analyzers
> Affects Versions: 3.1
> Reporter: Shyamal Prasad
> Assignee: Robert Muir
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: LUCENE-2167-jflex-tld-macro-gen.patch,
> LUCENE-2167-jflex-tld-macro-gen.patch, LUCENE-2167-jflex-tld-macro-gen.patch,
> LUCENE-2167-lucene-buildhelper-maven-plugin.patch,
> LUCENE-2167.benchmark.patch, LUCENE-2167.benchmark.patch,
> LUCENE-2167.benchmark.patch, LUCENE-2167.patch, LUCENE-2167.patch,
> LUCENE-2167.patch, LUCENE-2167.patch, LUCENE-2167.patch, LUCENE-2167.patch,
> LUCENE-2167.patch, LUCENE-2167.patch, LUCENE-2167.patch, LUCENE-2167.patch,
> LUCENE-2167.patch, LUCENE-2167.patch, LUCENE-2167.patch, LUCENE-2167.patch,
> LUCENE-2167.patch, LUCENE-2167.patch, LUCENE-2167.patch, LUCENE-2167.patch,
> standard.zip, StandardTokenizerImpl.jflex
>
> Original Estimate: 0.5h
> Remaining Estimate: 0.5h
>
> It would be really nice for StandardTokenizer to adhere straight to the
> standard as much as we can with jflex. Then its name would actually make
> sense.
> Such a transition would involve renaming the old StandardTokenizer to
> EuropeanTokenizer, as its javadoc claims:
> bq. This should be a good tokenizer for most European-language documents
> The new StandardTokenizer could then say
> bq. This should be a good tokenizer for most languages.
> All the english/euro-centric stuff like the acronym/company/apostrophe stuff
> can stay with that EuropeanTokenizer, and it could be used by the european
> analyzers.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
