True. There are features that aren't useful for every search. But the
features in Lucene are meant for full text search, not for serving full
text search. Maybe faceting was a bad example, it was the first that
came to mind and defines what many people use Solr for.
Lucene IMO is a full text search *library*. When features are added to
it, that is the perspective that should be taken. Does it work as a
general purpose indexing library?
I am all for adding in *very* useful features, especially when someone
else has done the work, as long as they fall into that boundary. But
Solr isn't a search library, it is a search server. Aren't those
separate responsibilities? Should we take some of the things out of
Solr and put them into Lucene? Absolutely. Should we merge to do this.
No, not IMO.
And Power is good in the right hands, but that is another discussion :)
Dennis
Ted Dunning wrote:
There are scads of features of Lucene that are not useful for all
applications (payloads, for one example, back compatibility for another).
The point is that the option to use faceting or not would be *very* useful
for all search applications. Power is good, especially since somebody else
has done the work already.
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Dennis Kubes <[email protected]> wrote:
Faceting for example, great feature, but not useful in every full text
search.
