As soon as I have removed version, then we can fix StandardTokenizer too! On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Shai Erera <ser...@gmail.com> wrote:
> By all means Robert ... by all means :). Remember who started that thread, > and for what reason :D. > > Shai > > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> If you really believe this. then you have no problem if i remove all >> Version from all core and contrib analyzers right now. >> >> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Shai Erera <ser...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Robert ... I'm sorry but changes to Analyzers don't *force* people to >>> reindex. They can simply choose not to use the latest version. They can >>> choose not to upgrade a Unicode version. They can copy the entire Analyzer >>> code to match their needs. Index format changes is what I'm worried about >>> because that *forces* people to reindex. >>> >>> Analyzers, believe it or not, are just a tool, an out of the box tool >>> even, we're giving users to analyze their stuff. Probably a tool used by >>> most of our users, but not all. Some have their own tools, that are >>> currently wrapped as a Lucene Analyzer just because the API mandates. But we >>> were talking about that too recently no? Ripping Analyzer off IndexWriter? >>> >>> Just to be clear - I think your work on Analyzers is fantastic ! Really ! >>> Seriously ! >>> But it's a choice someone can make ... whereas index format is a given - >>> you have to live with it, or never upgrade Lucene. >>> >>> But I think we've chewed that way too much. I am all for removing bw on >>> Analyzers, and 2396 is a great step towards it (or maybe it is IT?). Even >>> index format - I don't see when it will change next (but I think I have an >>> idea ...), so we can tackle it then. >>> >>> Shai >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Shai Erera <ser...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Actually, I'd like to know if people like Robert (basically those who >>>>> have no problem to reindex and don't understand the fuss around it) will >>>>> want to change the index format - can I count on them to be asked to >>>>> provide >>>>> such tool? That's to me a policy we should decide on ... whatever the >>>>> consequences. >>>>> >>>> >>>> just look at the 1.8MB of backwards compat code in contrib/analyzers i >>>> want to remove in LUCENE-2396? >>>> are you serious? I wrote most of that cruft to prevent reindexing and >>>> you are trying to say I "don't understand the fuss about it"? >>>> >>>> We shouldnt make people reindex, but we should have the chance, even if >>>> we only do it ONE TIME, to reset Lucene to a new "Major Version" that has a >>>> bunch of stuff fixed we couldnt fix before, and more flexibility. >>>> >>>> because with the current policy, its like we are in 1.x forever.... our >>>> version numbers are a joke! >>>> -- >>>> Robert Muir >>>> rcm...@gmail.com >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Robert Muir >> rcm...@gmail.com >> > > -- Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com
