[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9317?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17085063#comment-17085063
]
Tomoko Uchida commented on LUCENE-9317:
---------------------------------------
Hi [~oobles] you can use "@" mention when you need feedback from specific
person/people to gain the attention (and sorry, I seem not to be the one here).
[~uschindler] would you give some feedback or thoughts.
{quote}
Apologies that the commit is difficult to review. I staged the changes and
moves in one commit when I should have done it as moves then changes. Let me
know if you'd rather I redo it.
{quote}
I'm not sure what is the preferred way, but you could make some small,
incomplete patch/PR to describe your idea for review. Or I think some detailed
design discussion (without patch) would also be okay before touching the
codebase, since the problem you picked up would not be about java
implementation, but package/module structure. ?
> Resolve package name conflicts for StandardAnalyzer to allow Java module
> system support
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-9317
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9317
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: core/other
> Affects Versions: master (9.0)
> Reporter: David Ryan
> Priority: Major
> Labels: build, features
>
>
> To allow Lucene to be modularised there are a few preparatory tasks to be
> completed prior to this being possible. The Java module system requires that
> jars do not use the same package name in different jars. The lucene-core and
> lucene-analyzers-common both share the package
> org.apache.lucene.analysis.standard.
> Possible resolutions to this issue are discussed by Uwe on the mailing list
> here:
>
> [http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-dev/202004.mbox/%3CCAM21Rt8FHOq_JeUSELhsQJH0uN0eKBgduBQX4fQKxbs49TLqzA%40mail.gmail.com%3E]????
> {quote}About StandardAnalyzer: Unfortunately I aggressively complained a
> while back when Mike McCandless wanted to move standard analyzer out of the
> analysis package into core (“for convenience”). This was a bad step, and IMHO
> we should revert that or completely rename the packages and everything. The
> problem here is: As the analysis services are only part of lucene-analyzers,
> we had to leave the factory classes there, but move the implementation
> classes in core. The package has to be the same. The only way around that is
> to move the analysis factory framework also to core (I would not be against
> that). This would include all factory base classes and the service loading
> stuff. Then we can move standard analyzer and some of the filters/tokenizers
> including their factories to core an that problem would be solved.
> {quote}
> There are two options here, either move factory framework into core or revert
> StandardAnalyzer back to lucene-analyzers. In the email, the solution lands
> on reverting back as per the task list:
> {quote}Add some preparatory issues to cleanup class hierarchy: Move Analysis
> SPI to core / remove StandardAnalyzer and related classes out of core back to
> anaysis
> {quote}
>
>
>
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
