iday, March 26, 2010 4:59 PM
>> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Modules
>>
>> I also like the idea of a very basic analyzer set - I think you should
>> still be able to do things with just the core jar - even if its only
>> very basic things.
>>
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
> And in my opinion we should fork a 3.1 branch before!
>
> Uwe
>
yeah we don't need to rush into it. we could create a module that is
contrib + solr as a first step.
this could also work for the spatial situation.
--
Robert Muir
rcm...@gma
I think we should consolidate all query parsers as a module? And all
queries (contrib/queries + oal/search/*Query)?
I don't think we should leave "basic X" inside core... I think there
should be one place to get the different Xs lucene offers (where X is
a query parser, queries, analyzers, etc.).
And in my opinion we should fork a 3.1 branch before!
Uwe
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Miller [mailto:markrmil...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 4:59 PM
> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Modules
>
> I also like the idea of a very b
analyzer set (without Standard!!!).
Uwe
-Original Message-
From: Shai Erera [mailto:ser...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 4:16 PM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Modules
+1 for moving modules up one level.
As for analyzers, I also prefer if lucene won't depe
That will be also heavy ANT build refactoring (oh no...). But I am also for a
basic analyzer set (without Standard!!!).
Uwe
> -Original Message-
> From: Shai Erera [mailto:ser...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 4:16 PM
> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subje
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 18:24, Robert Muir wrote:
> I would really love to see them all in one place though, for the
> users. I think that the elegance of our tests should be second to the
> users ease.
> Perhaps we could just have a fast and dirty TestAnalyzer so the core
> tests don't need to de
n 3/26/10 7:16 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
So, should we start thinking about a Modules dir at the same level as
Lucene/Solr where shared, non-core code lives?
For starters, I think spatial and analyzers could go there.
Proposal:
lucene/
solr/
modules/
analyzers
spatial
others (hi
2010/3/26 Shai Erera :
> +1 for moving modules up one level.
>
> As for analyzers, I also prefer if lucene won't depend on modules even
> if just for the tests. That way one who doesn't use any module can
> check out lucene only. We can keep in lucene some basic analyzers
> (Whitespace, Simple) as
+1 for moving modules up one level.
As for analyzers, I also prefer if lucene won't depend on modules even
if just for the tests. That way one who doesn't use any module can
check out lucene only. We can keep in lucene some basic analyzers
(Whitespace, Simple) as well as a best out of the box choi
> Sounds good to me. I guess one thing to think about is the analyzers
> in core (should they move to this module, too?).
> If so, perhaps we could make 'ant test' of lucene depend on this
> module, since core tests use analyzers.
> But you could use lucene without an analyzers module, it wouldnt b
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> So, should we start thinking about a Modules dir at the same level as
> Lucene/Solr where shared, non-core code lives?
>
> For starters, I think spatial and analyzers could go there.
>
> Proposal:
>
> lucene/
> solr/
> modules/
> analyz
12 matches
Mail list logo
