+1 for having a single function query - actually this is what LUCENE-1081 and SOLR-192 is about. I'd look at this after LUCENE-1812, but this is waiting so long now, please go ahead with this, I'll follow/join.
-0 for moving function to modules - I think this is used as core capability by many applications/users and I don't see why it should be in modules, as to me this is more like .. I was going to say "like payloads" but this is not true, it is not nearly as involved and as internal as payloads, so replaced "-1" with "-0" here, but, could you explain why move this from core to modules? Doron On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Chris Male <gento...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 to this idea. > > I recall talking to Robert and Mark about it as a good first step as part > of the spatial code consolidation as well. > > > On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Simon Willnauer < > simon.willna...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> hey, >> >> today I came across function query in lucene and that reminded me that >> Solr is already using its own derived version which is no good IMO. We >> should try to consolidate the two version and make solr use the >> consolidated version which would even be good for lucene users. It >> seems it would make lots of sense to make the entire function query >> stuff a module and drop it from core in 4.0. I didn't look too close >> into the solr version but it seems to be not that hard to luceneify it >> and move it to modules, thoughts? >> >> simon >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >> >> > > > -- > Chris Male | Software Developer | JTeam BV.| www.jteam.nl >
