I look forward to a standardization on *something* but would prefer that we not make a sweeping change like this until after Mark's "ref branch" is reconciled. I don't want that to hang over the project indefinitely, but we can wait; we've not had this standardization yet for many years, after all.
That said, it would be good to choose the standard name now so that there is less to change later. Can someone dig up the statistics on Solr's name choice to see if there is a clear winner (e.g. >60%)? I don't have a strong opinion on whatever the standard should be so long as there is a standard :-) ~ David Smiley Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 12:18 PM Gus Heck <[email protected]> wrote: > FWIW, I'm not really in favor of the convention Lucene adopted. I probably > lost track of the debate and failed to object which is on me, but I guess > it was because that was the lower number of changes there? It's > certainly much less legible in the IDE to have a wall of classes all > starting with T. Maybe given that the projects are splitting Solr can Stick > with FooTest not TestFoo? I think *Test suffix is more common in Solr... > (though I haven't attempted to quantify it) > > On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 12:05 PM Eric Pugh < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Makes sense to me. >> >> >> On Feb 20, 2021, at 2:42 PM, Marcus Eagan <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> Now that Lucene’s standardization is complete and I believe enforced, >> should we discuss if we could bring the same consistency to Solr? >> >> Best, >> >> Marcus >> -- >> Marcus Eagan >> >> >> _______________________ >> *Eric Pugh **| *Founder & CEO | OpenSource Connections, LLC | 434.466.1467 >> | http://www.opensourceconnections.com | My Free/Busy >> <http://tinyurl.com/eric-cal> >> Co-Author: Apache Solr Enterprise Search Server, 3rd Ed >> <https://www.packtpub.com/big-data-and-business-intelligence/apache-solr-enterprise-search-server-third-edition-raw> >> This e-mail and all contents, including attachments, is considered to be >> Company Confidential unless explicitly stated otherwise, regardless >> of whether attachments are marked as such. >> >> > > -- > http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) > http://www.the111shift.com (play) >
