Me, too. I noticed Grant mentioned this in one of the long emails/threads, too, a few weeks back, but I didn't want to pull out just that piece and disturb the thread. And I bet people outside Lucene would love to have search-independent set of chainable tokenizers, token filters, and such.
Otis -- Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch ----- Original Message ---- > From: Michael McCandless <luc...@mikemccandless.com> > To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org > Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 10:04:10 AM > Subject: Re: Lucene 2.9 Again > > I agree. > > I'm picturing some hopefully-not-that-distant future when we have a > queries "module" and analysis "module" that live quite separately from > Lucene & Solr's "core", and committers from both Solr and Lucene would > work on it. > > Mike > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Grant Ingersollwrote: > > > > On Jun 17, 2009, at 4:42 AM, Michael McCandless wrote: > > > >> I would love to see function queries consolidated between Solr and > >> Lucene! I think it's a prime example of duplicated and then diverged > >> sources between Lucene and Solr... > > > > The primary reason it's diverged is it gets a lot of attention on Solr and > > near zero in Lucene. You rarely see someone on java-user ask about function > > queries. In Solr, it's a regular solution to many problems. So, just like > > the analysis problem, it strikes me as one of those areas that if it is > > going to be done, and maintained, then Solr committers need write access. > > > > -Grant --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
