On Jun 17, 2013, at 11:00 AM, Aaron McCurry <[email protected]> wrote:
> Basically my biggest concern about moving the directory and block cache > code that Blur utilizes is loss of control. > > Aaron Yeah, I would share the same feeling. I can easily see you guys deciding that diverging is the better path. I think it's worth exploring collaboration as well though. Some of my thinking: There are two issues I would have if I was a Blur dev: 1. Loss of commit control - you are not Lucene/Solr committers. I think this would not be difficult to solve to some degree - though there might be some initial pain. Essentially, I would expect that perhaps you keep using your code initially, but perhaps supply patches to Lucene - this is your code to begin with, and you guys are likely to be the experts - I'm sure your patches would be committed quickly and as a matter of course. It wouldn't take much of that to make some committers I would guess. If you were satisfied how this went, you could transition over to using the Lucene HdfsDirectory. If you were not satisfied, you would be out a bit of time contributing to Lucene - not the worst thing in the world ;) 2. Loss of control in general - now Lucene/Solr guys get a say. I think this one obviously has pluses and minuses. Yes, you have to deal with the Lucene/Solr community, but you also get their brain power and hopefully contributions. A larger community working on making the best HdfsDirectory we can. Personally, I don't think one path blows the other out of the water, but the idea is out there. We don't want to just suck up some of your code without offering a collaboration path - both to be fair to you and because of the positive affect it might have on future HdfsDirectory dev. - Mark
