On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Yonik Seeley <ysee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Jake Mannix <jake.man...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I'm not concerned with casual downloaders. I'm talking > > about the companies and people who may or may not be > > interested in making multi-million dollar decisions regarding > > using or not using Lucene or Solr. > > Heh - multi-million dollar decisions after a quick glance at an SVN url? > Clearly not. But just as I think that making the development of both solr and lucene easier is a noble goal, I think that giving people the impression that by choosing to "go with Lucene" *means* they "go with Solr" as their end solution is not what we want to do. There are some places where Solr is just not appropriate but Lucene may be. Will this impression be "caused" by a SVN directory url alone? Of course not. Merging committer lists, locked releases, *and* a SVN url which shows this? Yes, I think the kinds of VPs and CTO's I've talked to and tried to help decide whether to go with an open-source search solution could indeed start to get the feeling that there's really just one apache solution, the "Solr/Lucene solution". And if they look into Solr and decide that this particular application is not for them, they may then not look deep enough to see whether doing a custom Lucene application *would be*. -jake
