[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8911?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16883832#comment-16883832
]
Tomoko Uchida commented on LUCENE-8911:
---------------------------------------
Hi,
I might miss something... but have a question: if we only keep the name
provided by the author ("NAME" field) and discard the "old name", does this
cause problems for Lucene components or break any internal behaviour? It would
affect to client code?
I have no strong objection but still do not fully understand the reason why we
should introduce some complexity into our code to support multiple names.
> Backport LUCENE-8778 (improved analysis SPI name handling) to 8.x
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-8911
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8911
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: modules/analysis
> Reporter: Tomoko Uchida
> Priority: Minor
>
> In LUCENE-8907 I reverted LUCENE-8778 from the 8x branch.
> Can we backport it to 8x branch again, with transparent backwards
> compatibility (by emulating the factory loading method of Lucene 8.1)?
> I am not so sure about it would be better or not to backport the changes,
> however, maybe it is good for Solr to have SOLR-13593 without waiting for
> release 9.0.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.14#76016)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
