Hi Andi, I think this would be great. Let me add little bit more to your observations (whole night yesterday was spent fighting with renames - because I was building a project which imports shared lucene and solr -- there were thousands of same classes, I am not sure it would be possible without some sort of a flexible rename...)
JCC is a great tool and is used by potentially many projects - so stripping "org.apache" seems right for pylucene, but looks arbitrary otherwise (unless there is a flexible stripping mechanism). Also, if the full namespace remains original, then the code written in Python would be also executable by Jython, which is IMHO an advantage. But this being Python, the packages cannot be spread in different locations (ie. there can be only one org.apache.lucene.analysis package) - unless there exists (again) some flexible mechanism which populates the namespace with objects that belong there. It may seem an overkill to you, because for single projects it would work, but seems perfectly justifiable in case of imported shared libraries I don't know what is your idea for implementing the python packages, but your last email got me thinking as well - there might be a very simple way of getting to the java packages inside Python without too much work. Let's say the java "org.apache.lucene.search.IndexSearcher" is known to python as org_apache_lucene_search_IndexSearcher and users do: import lucene lucene.initVM() initVM() first initiates java VM (and populates the lucene namespace with all objects), but then it will call jcc.register_module(self) A new piece of code inside JCC grabs the lucene module and creates (on the fly) python packages -- using types.ModuleType (or new.module()) -- the new packages will be inserted into sys.modules so after lucene.initVM() returns users can do "from org.apache.lucene.search import IndexSearcher" and get lucene.org_apache_lucene_search_IndexSearcher object and also, when shared libraries are present (let's say 'solr') users do: import solr solr.initVM() The JCC will just update the existing packages and create new ones if needed (and from this perspective, having fully qualified name is safer than to have lucene.search.IndexSearcher) I think this change is totally possible and will not change the way how extensions are built. Does it have some serious flaw? I would be of course more than happy to contribute and test. Best, roman On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Andi Vajda <va...@apache.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Jul 2012, Andi Vajda wrote: > > I would also like to propose a change, to allow for more flexible >>> mechanism of generating Python class names. The patch doesn't change >>> the default pylucene behaviour, but it gives people a way to replace >>> class names with patterns. I have noticed that there are more >>> same-name classes from different packages in the new lucene (and it >>> becomes worse when one has to deal with both lucene and solr). >>> >> >> Another way to fix this is to reproduce the namespace hierarchy used in >> Lucene, following along the Java packages, something I've been dreading to >> do. Lucene just loooooves a really long deeply nested class structure. >> I'm not convinced yet it is bad enough to go down that route, though. >> >> Your proposal to use patterns may in fact yield a much more convenient >> solution. Thanks ! >> > > Rethinking this a bit, I'm prepared to change my mind on this. Your > patterned rename patch shows that we're slowly but surely reaching the > limit of the current setup that consists in throwing all wrapped classes > under the one global 'lucene' namespace. > > Lucene 4.0 has seen a large number of deeply nested classes with similar > names added since 3.x. Renaming these one by one (or excluding some) > doesn't scale. Using the proposed patterned rename scales more but makes it > difficult to know what got renamed and how. > Ultimately, the more classes that are like-named, the more classes would > have instable names from one release to the next as more duplicated names > are encountered. > > What if instead JCC supported the original Java namespaces all the way to > the Python inteface (still dropping the original 'org.apache' Java package > tree prefix) ? > The world-rooted style of naming Java classes isn't Pythonic but using the > second half of the package structure feels right at home in the Python > world. > > JCC already re-creates the complete Java package structure in C++ as > namespaces for all the C++ code it generates, for both the JNI wrapper > classes and the C++/Python types. It's only the installation of the class > names into the Python VM that is done in the flat 'lucene' namespace. > > I think it shouldn't be too hard to change the code that installs classes > to create sub-modules of the lucene module and install classes in these > submodules instead (down to however many levels are in the original). > > In other words: > - from lucene import Document > would become > - from lucene.document import Document > > One could of course also say: > - import lucene.document.Document as whateverOneLikes > > If that proposal isn't mortally flawed somewhere, I'm prepared to drop > support for --rename and replace it with this new Python class/module > layout. > > Since this is being talked about in the context of a major PyLucene > release, version 4.0, and that all tests/samples have to be reworked > anyway, this backwards compat break shouldn't be too controversial, > hopefully. > > If it is, the old --rename could be preserved for sure, but I'd prefer > simplying the JCC interface than to accrete more to it. > > What do you think ? > > Andi.. > > >> Andi.. >> >> >>> I can confirm the test_test_BinaryDocument.py crashes the JVM no more. >>> >>> Roman >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Andi Vajda <va...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Hi Roman, >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2012, Roman Chyla wrote: >>>> >>>> Thanks, I am attaching a new patch that adds the missing test base. >>>>> Sorry for the tabs, I was probably messing around with a few editors >>>>> (some of them not configured properly) >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I integrated your test class (renaming it to fit the naming scheme >>>> used). >>>> Thanks ! >>>> >>>> >>>> So far, found one serious problem, crashes VM -- see. eg >>>>>>>>> test/test_BinaryDocument.py - when getting the document using: >>>>>>>>> reader.document(0) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> test/test_BInaryDocument.py doesn't seem to crash the VM but fails >>>> because >>>> of some API changes. I suspect the crash to be some issue related to >>>> using >>>> an older jcc. >>>> >>>> I see a comment saying: "couldn't find any combination with lucene4.0 >>>> where >>>> it would raise errors". Most of these unit tests are straight ports >>>> from the >>>> original Java version. If you're stumped about a change, check the >>>> original >>>> Java test, it may have changed too. >>>> >>>> Andi.. >>>> >>>> >>> >>
