there is a third way Doug, and it's for me to stop trying to be polite by answering all the questions that I am being asked, then nobody will get upset by my replies. If the decision is for no encryption at field level, I accept it, but I don't believe it should be externalised. Perhaps someone else will pick up your offer.
V. Doug Cutting wrote: > >> Doug Cutting wrote: >>> So, Victor, do you think this functionality could be reasonably packaged >>> as an add-on package to Lucene? >> >> Doug, for an answer to most of your questions could you please refer to >> my >> answer to Chris Hostetter [ ... ] > > Let me be more direct. Encryption of Lucene fields may be useful. > However Lucene's developers don't appear to feel that it's appropriate > to include it in Lucene's the core at this time, and it doesn't seem > you're making much progress convincing them. > > There are two ways you could go from here: you could continue to argue > whether encryption should be added to the core, or you could try to > incorporate the feedback from the Lucene team, and perhaps try to get > encryption added to Lucene as an add-on package. I think the latter > approach is much more likely to be successful and will be less > frustrating for all concerned. > > Doug > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Attached-proposed-modifications-to-Lucene-2.0-to-support-Field.Store.Encrypted-tf2727614.html#a7710442 Sent from the Lucene - Java Developer mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
