There is kind of a proposal in https://github.com/apache/solr/blob/main/dev-docs/plugins-modules-packages.adoc#module-naming already, but I'd like to discuss the general idea and what structure makes the most sense here. With my "type" proposal, you can easily map the new names for the various contribs, e.g. "backup-s3", "backup-gce", "update-extraction", "update-langid", "search-analytics" etc. Other structures are also probably possible? Or we could just leave it up to each module author as before :)
Jan > 21. jan. 2022 kl. 15:25 skrev David Smiley <[email protected]>: > > Now is a great time to do some name changes. I suggest that you make a > specific proposal of what the names should be. > > ~ David Smiley > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley> > > On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 8:18 AM Alessandro Benedetti <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > I would also add a tangential question (rather than answers at this point): > What makes a module(contrib) a module(contrib)? > From now on I'll use 'module' where I intend a package under contrib. > > I am referring to first-party modules such as ltr or langid. > My initial understanding was that a module in contrib, is an integration with > some external dependency (like langid with OpenNLP, Tika or langdetect). > But then, why is ltr a module? It doesn't really integrate with any external > dependency. > It's additional query parsers and components for a key Solr functionality. > Is it just a legacy consequence of the fact that initially, Bloomberg > contributed the module? > Maybe this applies to other modules as well (analytics?). > Then, should this be fixed and brought inside the Solr core? > > And what about first party/third party modules? > I don't think there's any visible difference right now, but in case we want > to make a difference, should we create a sort of official "Solr Plugin > Marketplace" ? > (I proposed the idea to Lucidworks many years ago when I was working for a > partner, and for a certain amount of time, I think there was a Solr Plugin > Marketplace, but it was proprietary). > > I am curious to understand what you think about this and then reason about > the naming convention. > > Cheers > > > -------------------------- > Alessandro Benedetti > Apache Lucene/Solr PMC member and Committer > Director, R&D Software Engineer, Search Consultant > > www.sease.io <http://www.sease.io/> > > On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 at 10:47, Jan Høydahl <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Hi, > > In > https://github.com/apache/solr/blob/main/dev-docs/plugins-modules-packages.adoc#module-naming > > <https://github.com/apache/solr/blob/main/dev-docs/plugins-modules-packages.adoc#module-naming> > I suggested standardizing contrib/module names. We did not discuss it in > yesterday's committer meeting, and it may be a bit too much for 9.0. But I'd > like to discussed, since we are anyway renaming everything in SOLR-15917 > "contrib->module". > > With as few contribs as we had so far it has not really been an issue. But > the reason I suggested it is because I anticipate a huge growth in number of > modules/packages during 9.x, and it can get messy. Another reason for having > a convention is that it forces the module/package creator to think through > whether the proposed module has the right granularity. Take for instance the > new "HDFS" or "Hadoop" module. It won't fit into either of my proposed types, > as it contains both a directoryFactory, one or two authentication plugins and > one backup repository. That of course suggests that the module is too big and > should be divided. Another reason is that when we have 50 modules / packages > it would be far better for users to be able to find all backup repositories > by looking for backup-* rather than guess from naming what it is. Perhaps a > bad example since both repo contribs have a suffix "-repository" today. But > then "-repository" is not as user friendly as "backup-". > > So I guess I'd like your opinion on > > 1) Do we even want a convention (at least for our own code?) > 2) If yes, should we rename the contribs/modules for 9.0 when we throw them > around anyway? > 3) When we start adding package manifests to the modules, should there be a > 1:1 between module name and package name? > > Refarding the last point, we could apply such standardized naming convention > for the packages only and leave module names as-is, i.e. you'd do "solr > package install update-extraction" even if the module name is "extraction". > Jan >
