I didn't mean for Peter to write both backends but perhaps, if he's experimenting already anyway, make it possible to extract an interface which could be substituted externally with different implementations. Makes it easier to tinker with various options, even for us.
D. On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 1:16 AM Robert Muir <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 3:05 PM Dawid Weiss <[email protected]> wrote: > > Maybe the "backend" could be configurable somehow so that you could > change the strategy depending on your needs?... I haven't looked at how > FSTs are used but if can be hidden behind a facade then an alternative > implementation could be provided depending on one's need? > > > > D. > > > > I don't have any confidence that solr would default to the "smaller" > option or fix how they manage different solr cores or thousands of > threads or any of the analyzer issues. And who would maintain this > separate hunspell backend? I don't think it is fair to Peter to have > to cope with 2 implementations of hunspell, 1 is certainly enough... > :). It's all apache license, at the end of the day if someone wants to > step up, let 'em. otherwise let's get out of their way. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
