On LUCENE-5189 I ran into the following problem: I wrote a test which
creates an index with "old" unsupported Codecs (40, 41, 42) and then tries
to update them, expecting to fail since those Codecs don't support
numeric-dv-updates, as well as their Consumer isn't even shipped and they
throw UOE in fieldsConsumer(). But, the test doesn't hit that exception,
because the RWCodecs are listed under test-framework/META-INF/services and
are used instead of the real 40/41/42Codec.

In light of what was discussed here, why do we need those Codecs listed in
services?

Shai


On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Shai Erera <[email protected]> wrote:

> I removed it from META-INF and all tests pass. So I guess it's safe to
> remove it completely.
>
>
> Actually Facet45Codec is not needed at all. I dont understand why we
>> have a codec class here at all.
>>
>
> Because it takes FacetIndexingParams and returns FacetDVF for all fields
> that appear in the indexing params. Can you do that without a Codec class?
> It's also easier to use than users figuring they should extend
> Lucene45Codec to plug-in FacetDVF.
>
> I'll just remove it from META-INF?
>
> Shai
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Robert Muir <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Shai Erera <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > I don't think we should go that far. If you extend Lucene45Codec you
>> > basically agree to the entire index format, but are given a chance to
>> > control per-field postings and doc values. Otherwise, make your own
>> Codec,
>> > and then you'll need to register it in META-INF/services.
>> >
>> > The assert I proposed to make in the ctor is only for "education
>> purposes"
>> > -- apps need not register their Lucene45CodecExtension in services. We
>> can
>> > document it, and assertions would help verify it.
>> >
>>
>> I don't think we need anything here really: Facet45Codec shouldnt be
>> in META-INF.
>>
>> Actually Facet45Codec is not needed at all. I dont understand why we
>> have a codec class here at all.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>
>>
>

Reply via email to