[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9705?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17299167#comment-17299167
]
Greg Miller commented on LUCENE-9705:
-------------------------------------
I'm not very familiar with all the different codec classes here or the process,
but I think there are some cases at least where classes get duplicated even
though there's no change right? Sort of to Mike S.'s point (if I'm
understanding at least). This is maybe limited to package-private utility
stuff? So maybe it's not worth splitting hairs over, but I've at least seen
duplication (with no change) in the PForUtil/ForUtil/ForDeltaUtil classes. I'm
not sure I would propose anything different (package-privacy is nice), but it
is a little bit of a rough edge with the current solution.
> Move all codec formats to the o.a.l.codecs.Lucene90 package
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-9705
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9705
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Wish
> Reporter: Ignacio Vera
> Priority: Major
> Time Spent: 9.5h
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> Current formats are distributed in different packages, prefixed with the
> Lucene version they were created. With the upcoming release of Lucene 9.0, it
> would be nice to move all those formats to just the o.a.l.codecs.Lucene90
> package (and of course moving the current ones to the backwards-codecs).
> This issue would actually facilitate moving the directory API to little
> endian (LUCENE-9047) as the only codecs that would need to handle backwards
> compatibility will be the codecs in backwards codecs.
> In addition, it can help formalising the use of internal versions vs format
> versioning ( LUCENE-9616)
>
--
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
