can you also add this to lucene pom.xml ?
Martin
______________________________________________
From: ser...@gmail.com
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 07:57:26 +0000
Subject: Re: Breaking Java back-compat in Solr
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
As for SOLR-8475, I will commit it to trunk only. But I think that we should
come up w/ concrete annotations in our code, and annotate classes as we go, to
back our back-compat policy. I propose that we add these:
@solr.internal - this is internal API and will change without notice. No
back-compat guarantees.
@solr.experimental - this is a candidate for a new public API, but will likely
change until it stabilizes. No (strong) back-compat guarantees.
@solr.expert - while you can use this API, we cannot guarantee strong
back-compat support. Will be on a per-case basis.
@solr.public - this is our public API, standard back-compat policy. Of course,
if something needs break, we'll discuss the case, but otherwise users who use
this API can expect to upgrade minor releases without re-compiling their code.
Immediate candidate is SolrJ.
I also propose that until we tag all classes, we treat "no annotation" as
@solr.internal (except for SolrJ code). That will force us to explicitly tag
classes that we think should at least be @solr.public, since that's the only
annotation that should draw the attention of developers.
If people agree, we can add these annotations to the build.xml, to add proper
text to javadocs.
Shai
On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 2:15 AM Jack Krupansky <jack.krupan...@gmail.com> wrote:
With the talk of 6.0 coming out real soon and not waiting for new work, will
this 6.0/5.x issue become moot and morph into an issue for 7.0/6.x?
Settling the criteria for Solr plugin API back-compat still seems urgent, but
if the SOLR-8475 work can quickly get committed to trunk for 6.0 maybe that
takes some of the pressure off. Still, I'd prefer that the back-compat criteria
be settled ASAP.
-- Jack Krupansky
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Yonik Seeley <ysee...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:03 AM, Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net> wrote:
> As I understand, seems like there's reasonable consensus that we will:
>
> 1. provide strong back-compat for for SolrJ and REST APIs
> 2. Strive to maintain but not guarantee *strong* back-compat for Java APIs.
I think this actually represents what our current policy already is.
The sticking point is perhaps "Strive to maintain" is changing
definition to become much more lenient, to the point of being
meaningless.
Let's look at the issue that spawned this thread:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8475 (Some refactoring to
SolrIndexSearcher)
The issue is if QueryCommand and QueryResult should be moved out of
SolrIndexSearcher in 5.x (essentially a rename), or of that rename
should only be in 6.0. If one's desire for a class rename (of classes
that are likely to be used by plugins) overrides #2, I'd argue that
means we essentially have no #2 at all. Or perhaps I'm not grasping
why it's really that important to rename those classes.
Regarding annotations:
Multiple people have suggested annotating classes that should remain
back compat. If we were to do this, wouldn't we want those
annotations to cover the classes in question
(SolrIndexSearcher,QueryCommand,QueryResult)? If not, what would they
cover and still be useful?
-Yonik
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
