On Mar 1, 2010, at 6:28 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: > > On Feb 28, 2010, at 9:05 PM, Michael Busch wrote: > >> On 2/28/10 4:30 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: >>> >> >> I was really happy about the original idea of having a separate analyzer >> module (or subproject, library, whatever name it'd have), because analysis >> seems quite separate from indexing/search. Separating the two seems logical. >> And why not release such an analyzer package more frequently than Lucene. >> Different pieces of code don't all move with the same pace. It'd be nice to >> have the freedom of releasing an analyzer library after e.g. a new language >> was added, maybe even only two weeks after the previous release. IMO more >> modular release cycles is a better way to go than this new proposal. > > Yeah, but you know the Analyzers are just the start. Next it's faceting, > then some other piece, b/c let's all face facts: Solr is more or less what > you build when you build a Lucene search application. People say the don't > want all the "bloat" (AFAICT, what they really mean is they prefer their own > bloat, since every implementation I ever see of Lucene looks damn well a lot > like Solr and I've seen _a lot_ of implementations). So, to me, why not just > get it over with? One of the outcomes of it, could easily be that Solr is > more modular anyway, meaning people can pick and choose more what they want > (although they already can). >
But, like Mark said, even w/ such a proposed move, people can still happily keep their "bloated" code, too! So, don't take me as implying we would be forcing it on everyone. So, all those other 3rd party sub projects would still be just fine. -Grant
