On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 6:28 AM, Michael McCandless <luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote: > Why impose namespace restrictions based on where code was originally > committed? I think the namespace of refactored code should reflect > the nature of the code, not its original origins?
And if it's a very core part of solr that we've tended to hang a lot of new features on, etc, then the nature of that code should still hopefully be "solrish". > For example, when I refactored UnInvertedField, it split nicely into a > Solr piece and a core Lucene piece, and so I gave the core Lucene > piece then org.apache.lucene.index namespace. That's because it was factored directly into Lucene-core, not into a module. > I think leaving refactored code in the solr namespace sends the wrong > message (ie, that this module "depends" on Solr somehow). The lucene > namespace makes it clear that it only depends on Lucene. But that won't be true... it's likely that many modules will depend on other modules. But as I said... it seems only fair to meet half way and use the solr namespace for some modules and the lucene namespace for others. -Yonik --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
