[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9317?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17085669#comment-17085669
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-9317:
---------------------------------------
Hi [~oobles], hi [~tomoko],
I disagree with moving all of analysis-common to a subpackage "common". This is
not needed and makes the class hierarchy not in-line with kuromoji, nori, icu
and other language specific packages. There is no need to do this as there are
no package conflicts. having common in the name changes the language-specific
analyzers to have no consistent class/package name.
Moving all files to another package is a major problem also for people using
config files. Factories are still often referenced by class name, although
there's the "solr.XXXXFactory" shortcut - still available in 9.0 (we want to
get rid of that and move all people to the SPI names using the "name" instead
of "class" attribute in Solr).
> 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
