On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Doron Cohen <cdor...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 for having a single function query - actually this is what LUCENE-1081 > and SOLR-192 is about. I'd look at this after LUCENE-1812, but this is > waiting so long now, please go ahead with this, I'll follow/join.
good stuff... > > -0 for moving function to modules - I think this is used as core capability > by many applications/users and I don't see why it should be in modules, as > to me this is more like .. I was going to say "like payloads" but this is > not true, it is not nearly as involved and as internal as payloads, so > replaced "-1" with "-0" here, but, could you explain why move this from core > to modules? So moving stuff to modules has several advantages compared to trunk. I think we all agree that we want lucene to be able to make use of this functinality right?! So if we keep it in core we can either try to make it right this time or we stick with bw compat for a long time again risking that the same thing happens again and solr changes stuff in incompatible ways. While this is a minor risk, I see FQ not really a core part of lucene but rather something that is similar to Analysis, a package with a small base interface (which could stay in lucene core) and a large useful impl base like all the funcs in solr. So it seems to me that modules is the right place for at least those implemenations. does that make sense? > > Doron > > On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Chris Male <gento...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> +1 to this idea. >> I recall talking to Robert and Mark about it as a good first step as part >> of the spatial code consolidation as well. >> >> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Simon Willnauer >> <simon.willna...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> >>> hey, >>> >>> today I came across function query in lucene and that reminded me that >>> Solr is already using its own derived version which is no good IMO. We >>> should try to consolidate the two version and make solr use the >>> consolidated version which would even be good for lucene users. It >>> seems it would make lots of sense to make the entire function query >>> stuff a module and drop it from core in 4.0. I didn't look too close >>> into the solr version but it seems to be not that hard to luceneify it >>> and move it to modules, thoughts? >>> >>> simon >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Chris Male | Software Developer | JTeam BV.| www.jteam.nl > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
