+1 So many people ask me when Solr will have all the lucene features and how quickly solr keeps up. If we can make it somehow I think it would be a huge improvement. Except of mark millers resume :)
simon On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:11 PM, Robert Muir <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Michael McCandless < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> I think this is a good idea! LuSolr ;) (kidding) >> >> I agree with all of your points Yonik. >> >> What do other people think...? >> >> Mike >> >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Yonik Seeley <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I've started to think that a merge of Solr and Lucene would be in the >> > best interest of both projects. >> > >> > Recently, Solr as pulled back from using Lucene trunk (or even the >> > latest version), as the increased amount of change between releases >> > (and in-between releases) made it impractical to deal with. This is a >> > pretty big negative for Lucene, since Solr is the biggest Lucene user >> > (where people are directly exposed to lucene for the express purpose >> > of developing search features). I know Solr development has always >> > benefited hugely from users using trunk, and Lucene trunk has now lost >> > all the solr users. >> > >> > Some in Lucene development have expressed a desire to make Lucene more >> > of a complete solution, rather than just a core full-text search >> > library... things like a data schema, faceting, etc. The Lucene >> > project already has an enterprise search platform with these >> > features... that's Solr. Trying to pull popular pieces out of Solr >> > makes life harder for Solr developers, brings our projects into >> > conflict, and is often unsuccessful (witness the largely failed >> > migration of FunctionQueries from Solr to Lucene). For Lucene to >> > achieve the ultimate in usability for users, it can't require Java >> > experience... it needs higher level abstractions provided by Solr. >> > >> > The other benefit to Lucene would be to bring features to developers >> > much sooner... Solr has had features years before they were developed >> > in Lucene, and currently has more developers working with it. Esp >> > with Solr not using Lucene trunk, if a Solr developer wants a feature >> > quickly, they cannot add it to Lucene (even if it might make sense >> > there) since that introduces a big unpredictable lag - when that >> > version of Lucene make it's way into Solr. >> > >> > The current divide is a bit unnatural. For maximum benefit of both >> > projects, it seems like Solr and Lucene should essentially merge. >> > Lucene core would essentially remain as it is, but: >> > 1) Solr would go back to using Lucene's trunk >> > 2) For new Solr features, there would be an effort to abstract it such >> > that non-Solr users could use the functionality (faceting, field >> > collapsing, etc) >> > 3) For new Lucene features, there would be an effort to integrate it into >> Solr. >> > 4) Releases would be synchronized... Lucene and Solr would release at >> > the same time. >> > >> > -Yonik >> > >> > > > > -- > Robert Muir > [email protected] >
