magibney commented on PR #1351: URL: https://github.com/apache/solr/pull/1351#issuecomment-1437385040
It just depends on what one considers "the feature" to be. Option 1 considers the feature to be "standard hooks to support the implementation of pluggable node-level caches". That's no small thing, and I _definitely_ think there would be folks interested in leveraging that feature. There are some features/concrete implementations that simply _can't_ be developed in a pluggable way, or where what's needed in terms of hooks to enable pluggability is not immediately clear in the absence of a concrete implementation. I'd argue that neither is the case here. The interfaces needed to support the desired functionality are clear, and introducing those interfaces will enable interested parties to iterate on cache designs, and contribute those implementations to core once they're robust enough to be less a risk of becoming a backcompat headache. We still see people using solr.LFUCache and solr.LRUCache now, simply because their configs haven't been updated to take advantage of the new default. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@solr.apache.org
