Mark, Can you give some more details on your disagreement here...?
Are there certain modules from my list that you don't think should be modules? The timeframe (1-2 years) is too optimistic/aggressive? Or you disagree that we should poach from outside projects too...? Or, more generally, you don't think Solr benefits from being opened up / modularized? Mike http://blog.mikemccandless.com On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On May 3, 2011, at 12:49 PM, Michael McCandless wrote: > >> Isn't this the future we are working towards? > > No, not really. Others perhaps, but not me. I'm on board with some modules. I > do think there are tradeoffs when considering them and considering Lucene and > Solr. I'm happy to take everything one issue at a time. > > When I voted to merge, no, I certainly was not thinking, I hope in a year or > two we have taken everything from Solr and made it a module. I did it for a > few specific things to start - analyzers for sure, perhaps some other things > as people did something that made sense. I did it so we could share some code > more easily - not all code. > > Others did it for their own reasons I assume. > > But no - I'm not sure I have ever fully subscribed to what you are saying. > > - Mark Miller > lucidimagination.com > > Lucene/Solr User Conference > May 25-26, San Francisco > www.lucenerevolution.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
