Hi Shai, On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Shai Erera <ser...@gmail.com> wrote: > > what if we made it a non-test class, which takes any Codec to wrap (i.e. > not default to Lucene41Codec)? >
What would be the benefits of having this class vs. extending FilterCodec? > While at that, should CompressingStoredFieldsFormat be named > CompressingStoredFieldsFormat41 or something like that, preparing it for > future changes? Or ... or we can add the version to the name only when it's > actually changed ... > Given that this class is @lucene.experimental, I think we could do the following when modifying the file format: - if backward compatibility is easy to maintain, just bump the version number - otherwise copy all the logic to Lucene41StoredFieldsFormat (instead of making Lucene41StoredFieldsFormat extend CompressingStoredFieldsFormat) and we can then change anything we want in CompressingStoredFieldsFormat without worrying about backward compatibility. -- Adrien
