No, I didn't say any of this, please read it again :) Old back-compat *Tokenizer/Tokenfilter* are named this way. *Tokenizer/Tokenfilter* Only the old ones. Just to be clear: *Tokenizer/Tokenfilter* Their Factories still use Version to produce the right one (as we can't remove version from there, or we will have complaints from solr developers).
So users who want the version-style back compat can just use the factories. really. On the other hand new users can do 'new LowerCaseFilter()' without the bullshit. For Analyzers, there is a setter. Users who want to use *OUR ANALYZERS* with back compat, call the setter. But its not mandatory-in-your-face-ctor. I am +1 to Ryan's proposal, so please look for more elaboration there. I am -1 to putting Versions in the name of Analyzers. On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Shai Erera <ser...@gmail.com> wrote: > Oh, I misread this part "I do think its ok to name ..." -- replaced "do" > with "don't" :). > > So you say that if we have a FooAnalyzer in 4.5 and change its behavior in > 4.9, then we add a Foo45Analyzer as a back-compat support, and FooAnalyzer > in 4.9 keeps its name, but with different behavior? > > That means that an app who didn't read CHANGES will be broken upon upgrade, > but if it does read CHANGES, it at least has a way to retain desired > behavior. > > So the thing now is whether FooAnalyzer is always _current_ and an app > should choose a backwards version of it (if it wants to), vs if FooAnalyzer > is _always the same_, and if you want to move forward you have to explicitly > use a NewFooAnalyzer? > > Of course, when FooAnalyzer takes a Version, then an app only needs to > change its Version CONSTANT, to get best behavior ... but as you point out, > seems like we failed to implement that approach in our code already, which > suggests this approach is not intuitive to our committers, so why do we > expect our users to understand it ... > > I am +1 on either of the approaches (both get rid of Version.java). I don't > feel bad with asking users to read CHANGES before they upgrade, and it does > mean that FooAnalyzer always gives you the best behavior, which is important > for new users or if you always re-index. Vs the second approach which always > prefers backwards compatibility, and telling users to read the javadocs (and > CHANGES) in order to find the best version of FooAnalyzer. > > There is another issue w/ a global Version CONSTANT, which today we > encourage apps to use -- if you use two analyzers, but you want to work with > a different Version of each (because of all sorts of reasons), having a > global constant is bad. The explicit Foo45Analyzer (or Foo49Analyzer, > whichever) lets you mix whichever versions that you want. > > Shai > > On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> You don't read what i wrote. >> >> Read it again. >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 7:49 AM, Shai Erera <ser...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Yes, I agree that Foo49Analyzer is an odd name. Better if it was named >> > FooAnalyzerWithNoApostrophe, and I'm fine if that Analyzer chose to name >> > its >> > different versions like that. But in the absence of better naming ideas, >> > I >> > proposed the Foo49Analyzer. >> > >> > If we already have such Analyzers, then we are in fact implementing that >> > approach, only didn't make that decision globally. So whether it's odd >> > or >> > not, let's first agree if we are willing to have these analyzers in our >> > code >> > base (i.e. w/ the back-compat support). If we do, we can let each >> > Analyzer >> > decide on its naming. >> > >> > Analyzers aren't Codecs, I agree, and sticking the Lucene version in >> > their >> > name is probably not the best thing to do, as the Lucene version is more >> > associated with the index format. But if a fixed Analyzer cannot come up >> > w/ >> > a better name, I think the Lucene version there is not that horrible. >> > >> > And, it lets us easily remove Version.java. >> > >> > Shai >> > >> > >> > On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Shai Erera <ser...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Another proposal that I made on LUCENE-5859 is to get rid of Version >> >> > (for >> >> > Analyzers) and follow the solution we have with Codecs. If an >> >> > Analyzer >> >> > changes its runtime behavior, and e.g not marked @experimental, it >> >> > can >> >> > create a Foo49Analyzer with the new behavior. That way, apps are >> >> > still >> >> > safe >> >> > when they upgrade, since their Foo45Analyzer still exists (but >> >> > deprecated). >> >> > And they can always copy a Foo45Analyzer when they upgrade to Lucene >> >> > 6.0 >> >> > where it no longer exists... with this approach, there's no single >> >> > version >> >> > across the app - it just uses the specific Analyzer impls. >> >> >> >> But the usability here would be really bad. >> >> >> >> For codecs there isn't much a better thing to name it anyway, and >> >> codecs are super-expert to change. >> >> >> >> For analyzers usability is paramount. >> >> >> >> I do think its ok to name _backwards_ compat tokenizer/tokenfilter >> >> classes this way. In fact its already this way in trunk for any back >> >> compat *actually doing something*: Lucene43NgramTokenizer, >> >> Lucene47WordDelimiterFilter. The Version parameters are just for show, >> >> not doing anything! >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >> >> >> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
