[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9317?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17191272#comment-17191272
]
Tomoko Uchida edited comment on LUCENE-9317 at 9/6/20, 1:35 PM:
----------------------------------------------------------------
I opened a PR for an early stage review:
[https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/pull/1836]
The main part was almost done but many follow-up tasks remain there (fixing
tests etc.).
I believe we already has reached a common ground, but do not want to proceed
without reviews/permissions. [~uschindler] (or someone else who takes care of
the issue) would you take a look at it when you have some time?
was (Author: tomoko uchida):
I opened a PR for an early stage review:
[https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/pull/1836]
The main part was done but there remain many follow-up tasks remain there
(fixing tests etc.).
I believe we already has reached a common ground, but do not want to proceed
without reviews/permissions. [~uschindler] (or someone else who takes care of
the issue) would you take a look at it when you have some time?
> Resolve package name conflicts for StandardAnalyzer to allow Java module
> system support
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-9317
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9317
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: core/other
> Affects Versions: master (9.0)
> Reporter: David Ryan
> Priority: Major
> Labels: build, features
> Time Spent: 20m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
>
> To allow Lucene to be modularised there are a few preparatory tasks to be
> completed prior to this being possible. The Java module system requires that
> jars do not use the same package name in different jars. The lucene-core and
> lucene-analyzers-common both share the package
> org.apache.lucene.analysis.standard.
> Possible resolutions to this issue are discussed by Uwe on the mailing list
> here:
>
> [http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-dev/202004.mbox/%3CCAM21Rt8FHOq_JeUSELhsQJH0uN0eKBgduBQX4fQKxbs49TLqzA%40mail.gmail.com%3E]????
> {quote}About StandardAnalyzer: Unfortunately I aggressively complained a
> while back when Mike McCandless wanted to move standard analyzer out of the
> analysis package into core (“for convenience”). This was a bad step, and IMHO
> we should revert that or completely rename the packages and everything. The
> problem here is: As the analysis services are only part of lucene-analyzers,
> we had to leave the factory classes there, but move the implementation
> classes in core. The package has to be the same. The only way around that is
> to move the analysis factory framework also to core (I would not be against
> that). This would include all factory base classes and the service loading
> stuff. Then we can move standard analyzer and some of the filters/tokenizers
> including their factories to core an that problem would be solved.
> {quote}
> There are two options here, either move factory framework into core or revert
> StandardAnalyzer back to lucene-analyzers. In the email, the solution lands
> on reverting back as per the task list:
> {quote}Add some preparatory issues to cleanup class hierarchy: Move Analysis
> SPI to core / remove StandardAnalyzer and related classes out of core back to
> anaysis
> {quote}
>
>
>
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
