[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5125?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13713894#comment-13713894
]
Hoss Man commented on LUCENE-5125:
----------------------------------
bq. Sorry I don't buy it. Its absolutely clear if you read all the comments on
the issue.
how/why the solr user mentioned in LUCENE-5121 decided to try the Disk based
docValues, or whether they ever looked at the solr wiki page on docvalues has
nothing to do with the fundemental point of _this_ issue: improving the lucene
codec javadocs.
(unless, for some strange reason, you think any and all java developers build
apps using lucene should somehow be implicitly expected to read the entire solr
wiki and/or sample solrconig.xml files?)
> Codec classes/packages that do not provide (automatic) file format back
> compat need to be more explicit about this in javadocs
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-5125
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5125
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Hoss Man
>
> rmuir noted in LUCENE-5121...
> bq. Currently (as documented), we don't provide index back compat for
> experimental codecs in lucene-codecs.jar.
> ...but except for a solr wiki page and solrconfig.xml comment, it's extremely
> non-obvious that any of these codec classes don't provide index backcompat.
> * the codec module overview.html page describes the module as "Collection of
> useful codec, postings format and terms dictionary implementations" -- with
> no indication that by using these "useful" implementations, the user gives up
> index backcompat.
> * the package.html files in the individual packages of the codec module
> (appending, blockterms, bbloom, diskdv, etc...) also say nothing about index
> backcompat
> * the individual classes in these codecs are mostly labeled with
> {{@lucene.experimental}} but in the resulting javadoc that merely says that
> "WARNING: This _API_ is experimental and might change in incompatible ways in
> the next release". Lots of classes in Lucene have this warning on them about
> their API (including the abstract codec apis themselves in lucene-core:
> DocValuesFormat, PostingsFormat, etc...) and that annotation (as far back as
> i can remember) has always only refered to the java API of the labeled class
> -- never to whether using that class ment you were giving up on index format
> back compat.
> Given how much effort and work is put into ensuring good index backcompat for
> default codec, we should be extremely explicit when/if alternative codecs do
> not support backcompat, so we don't frustrate/confuse users and leave them
> with the impression that they can never count on index backcompat just
> because they may not realize they were using an "unsupported" format option
> because of a blog post they read or advice they got on the mailing list about
> how to make something faster or use less ram.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
