[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1677?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12796862#action_12796862
]
Robert Muir commented on SOLR-1677:
-----------------------------------
bq. Oh come on now ... that's not really a fair criticism of the example: there
are plenty of legitimate ways to use (some) TokenFilters only at search time
and I specifically structured my example to point out potential problems in
cases just like that - Carl was very clear that "if you used
FooTokenFilterFactory in an index analyzer you'll need to reindex."
I disagree, Version applies to all of lucene (even more than tokenstreams), so
for Carl to imply that you don't need to reindex by bumping Version simply
because you aren't using X or Y or Z, for that he should be renamed Oscar.
bq. You could now argue that User Dwight is an idiot because he didn't warn Bob
that other Analyzers/Tokenizers/TokenFilters might be affected. But that just
leads us to scenerious that re-iterates my point that this type of global value
is something that would be dangerous to ever change....
Yeah, I guess I don't think he is an idiot. I just think he is a moron for
suggesting such a thing without warning of the consequences.
bq. Personally I never change the value of <luceneAnalyzerVersionDefault/> once
i have an existing schema.xml file. Instead i suggest you add
luceneVersion="3.2" to your <filter class="solr.FooTokenFilterFactory />
declaration so that you know you are only changing the behavior you want to
change.
Good for Ernest, i guess he is probably using Windows 3.1 still too because he
doesn't want to upgrade ever. Unless Ernest carefully reads Lucene CHANGES also
and reads all the Solr source code and knows which solr features are tied to
which lucene features, because its not obvious at all: i.e. solr's snowball
factory doesn't use lucene's snowball, etc etc.
bq. At the end of the day it just seems like a bigger risk then a feature ... I
feel like i must still be misunderstanding the motivation you guys have for
adding it, because it really seems like it boils down to "easier then having
the property 2.9 set on every analyzer/factory"
Yes you are right, personally I don't want all users to be stuck with
Version.LUCENE_24 forever.
> Add support for o.a.lucene.util.Version for BaseTokenizerFactory and
> BaseTokenFilterFactory
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-1677
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1677
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: Schema and Analysis
> Reporter: Uwe Schindler
> Attachments: SOLR-1677.patch, SOLR-1677.patch, SOLR-1677.patch,
> SOLR-1677.patch
>
>
> Since Lucene 2.9, a lot of analyzers use a Version constant to keep backwards
> compatibility with old indexes created using older versions of Lucene. The
> most important example is StandardTokenizer, which changed its behaviour with
> posIncr and incorrect host token types in 2.4 and also in 2.9.
> In Lucene 3.0 this matchVersion ctor parameter is mandatory and in 3.1, with
> much more Unicode support, almost every Tokenizer/TokenFilter needs this
> Version parameter. In 2.9, the deprecated old ctors without Version take
> LUCENE_24 as default to mimic the old behaviour, e.g. in StandardTokenizer.
> This patch adds basic support for the Lucene Version property to the base
> factories. Subclasses then can use the luceneMatchVersion decoded enum (in
> 3.0) / Parameter (in 2.9) for constructing Tokenstreams. The code currently
> contains a helper map to decode the version strings, but in 3.0 is can be
> replaced by Version.valueOf(String), as the Version is a subclass of Java5
> enums. The default value is Version.LUCENE_24 (as this is the default for the
> no-version ctors in Lucene).
> This patch also removes unneeded conversions to CharArraySet from
> StopFilterFactory (now done by Lucene since 2.9). The generics are also fixed
> to match Lucene 3.0.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
