Hi, please review LUCENE-9600, this cleans up split packages in "misc" module and makes some refactoring on classes in lucene/misc to keep lucene/core unchanged.
Tomoko 2020年10月24日(土) 19:25 Tomoko Uchida <[email protected]>: > Hi, > please review LUCENE-9319. This tries to resolve package name conflicts > between "sandbox" and "core" modules. > Looks like many eyeballs are needed for cleaning up our sandbox. > > Tomoko > > > 2020年10月18日(日) 0:36 Tomoko Uchida <[email protected]>: > >> Hi, >> please review LUCENE-9318, this refactors backward-codecs module >> (packages are renamed). >> I'm going to merge it into the master after waiting a week or so if there >> is no objection/feedback. >> >> Tomoko >> >> >> 2020年9月3日(木) 22:35 Tomoko Uchida <[email protected]>: >> >>> I also opened SOLR-14826 as the placeholder. I'm not fully sure of its >>> priority but at least Alexandre expressed an interest in fixing it for >>> Solr, thanks. >>> If there is someone who wants to take the ownership, please feel free to >>> join. I will leave it there until LUCENE-9499 is done anyway. >>> >>> >>> >>> 2020年9月3日(木) 0:12 Tomoko Uchida <[email protected]>: >>> >>>> I opened LUCENE-9499 as the umbrella. >>>> I set "Fix version" to 9.0 - means once we make a commit on it, this >>>> will be a blocker for release 9.0.0. (I don't think the changes should be >>>> delivered across two major releases; all changes have to be out at once in >>>> a major release.) If there are any objections or concerns, please leave >>>> comments. For now I have no idea about the total volume of changes or >>>> technical obstacles that have to be handled. >>>> >>>> About Solr - do we really need to fix split packages? Solr is a server >>>> app, the benefits seem to be smaller than Lucene (a library) for me. I'd >>>> like to hear opinions/thoughts from others. >>>> >>>> Tomoko >>>> >>>> >>>> 2020年9月2日(水) 9:05 Gus Heck <[email protected]>: >>>> >>>>> +1 to fixing and +1 to doing it in a major release. >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 4:32 PM Adrien Grand <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> +1 Changing packages of many classes should be done in a major. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 5:50 PM Tomoko Uchida < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Just to make sure, could I confirm "when the changes will be out"... >>>>>>> Resolving split package issues should break backward compatibility >>>>>>> (changing package names and moving classes from one module to another >>>>>>> modules). So we have just two options, we can have these changes only on >>>>>>> major releases - 9.0.0 or 10.0.0; we cannot release such changes at >>>>>>> minor >>>>>>> versions. Is that correct? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tomoko >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2020年9月1日(火) 22:08 Tomoko Uchida <[email protected]>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > As I recall one issue was around where to put analysis packages? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's LUCENE-9317. I had worked on it before, you can see what >>>>>>>> changes will be needed for analyzers-common (and core). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2020年9月1日(火) 22:00 Michael Sokolov <[email protected]>: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm in favor - there may be some difficult choices though. As I >>>>>>>>> recall >>>>>>>>> one issue was around where to put analysis packages? I forget the >>>>>>>>> details, but there was some pretty strong feeling that you should >>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>> a functioning system with core only. However some basic analysis >>>>>>>>> tools >>>>>>>>> are required for that, while most of our analyzers and so on are >>>>>>>>> in a >>>>>>>>> separate analysis module. Perhaps we will need to move some basic >>>>>>>>> analyzers out of com.amazon.lucene.analysis? Or the reverse - move >>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>> the analysis code into the analysis module and acknowledge that it >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> a fundamental dependency (more essential than core, really). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 8:26 AM Tomoko Uchida >>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > yes, Jigsaw was on my mind too... >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > > why not go ahead and try to clean it up right away? >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > > So a strong +1 to clean this up! >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > OK, maybe I should open two issues, one for Lucene and one for >>>>>>>>> Solr, and link existing wip issues to them. >>>>>>>>> > Once we start it, these will be blockers for 9.0.0 release I >>>>>>>>> believe (for now I have no idea about the volume of the changes or >>>>>>>>> technical obstacles). Are there any objections or comments? >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > 2020年9月1日(火) 19:34 Uwe Schindler <[email protected]>: >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> Hi, >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> The biggest issue is that split packages make migrating to the >>>>>>>>> Java 9 module system impossible. It's not allowed to have same >>>>>>>>> package name >>>>>>>>> (with classes) in different JAR files. >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> Some of those require to open up visibility of classes. Some >>>>>>>>> split packages issues were done because of package private access, >>>>>>>>> which is >>>>>>>>> very bad between JAR files. This also affects the test framework, >>>>>>>>> although >>>>>>>>> this is not such a big deal (I would exclude that for now), because >>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>> would never run UNIT tests inside a module system, only integration >>>>>>>>> tests. >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> So a strong +1 to clean this up! >>>>>>>>> >> Uwe >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> ----- >>>>>>>>> >> Uwe Schindler >>>>>>>>> >> Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen >>>>>>>>> >> https://www.thetaphi.de >>>>>>>>> >> eMail: [email protected] >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> > -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>> >> > From: Dawid Weiss <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> >> > Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 9:22 AM >>>>>>>>> >> > To: Lucene Dev <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> >> > Subject: Re: Approach towards solving split package issues? >>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>> >> > This is a big headache for many things. I wouldn't mind doing >>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>> >> > even for 9x. This is a major release, why not go ahead and >>>>>>>>> try to >>>>>>>>> >> > clean it up right away? >>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>> >> > Dawid >>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>> >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 11:50 PM Tomoko Uchida >>>>>>>>> >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > Hello devs, >>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > we have lots of package name conflicts (shared package >>>>>>>>> names) between >>>>>>>>> >> > modules in the Lucene/Solr source tree. It is not only >>>>>>>>> annoying for devs/users >>>>>>>>> >> > but also indeed bad practice since Java 9 (according to my >>>>>>>>> understanding), and >>>>>>>>> >> > we already have some problems with Javadocs due to these >>>>>>>>> splitted packages >>>>>>>>> >> > as some of us would know. I'm curious about the issue from a >>>>>>>>> while ago. My >>>>>>>>> >> > questions are, Q1: How can we solve the issue in an organized >>>>>>>>> way? Q2: How >>>>>>>>> >> > many of us really have interests about that? >>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > To break down Q1, >>>>>>>>> >> > > - A JIRA for building a grand design and organizing sub >>>>>>>>> tasks is needed? We >>>>>>>>> >> > have a couple of issues (e.g. LUCENE-9317 and LUCENE-9319) >>>>>>>>> about it and I >>>>>>>>> >> > had been playing around them before; but I feel like an >>>>>>>>> umbrella ticket would >>>>>>>>> >> > be needed. >>>>>>>>> >> > > - When to start and what's the target version to be out? My >>>>>>>>> feeling is that >>>>>>>>> >> > after cutting branch_9x is the right moment to start and >>>>>>>>> 10.0.0 is suitable for >>>>>>>>> >> > the target, does this make sense? >>>>>>>>> >> > > - Are there any other tasks/concerns to be considered >>>>>>>>> except for just >>>>>>>>> >> > renaming packages? >>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > Regarding Q2, >>>>>>>>> >> > > I know some of us have deep knowledge and thoughts in this >>>>>>>>> topic, but for >>>>>>>>> >> > now I am not sure how many of you have the will to give help >>>>>>>>> or take time for >>>>>>>>> >> > that. >>>>>>>>> >> > > It can't be a one-man effort. The more people understand >>>>>>>>> and can contribute >>>>>>>>> >> > to the build, the more healthy it will be. (I borrowed this >>>>>>>>> phrase from Gradle >>>>>>>>> >> > build issue LUCENE-9077). >>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > I don't intend to rush into making a decision, my purpose >>>>>>>>> here is to collect >>>>>>>>> >> > information to see if I can handle it before opening a JIRA. >>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > Thanks, >>>>>>>>> >> > > Tomoko >>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>>>>>> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>>>>>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Adrien >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) >>>>> http://www.the111shift.com (play) >>>>> >>>>
