[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2883?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12987604#action_12987604
]
Grant Ingersoll commented on LUCENE-2883:
-----------------------------------------
bq. Does that make sense?
I think it does. I think, as usual, it can be handled case by case. Just as
Robert pointed out, some analysis things stayed in Solr, I don't think anyone
is going to argue that we should put things where they most make sense. In
general, though, I think the modules affords us a lot of opportunity through
more exposure at the loss of a little bit of flexibility in Solr, which, as you
said can still be handled by doing that little piece in just Solr.
> Consolidate Solr & Lucene FunctionQuery into modules
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-2883
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2883
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Task
> Components: Search
> Affects Versions: 4.0
> Reporter: Simon Willnauer
> Fix For: 4.0
>
>
> Spin-off from the [dev list |
> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg13261.html]
--
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]
