On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 3:05 AM, Grant Ingersoll <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Feb 4, 2010, at 7:15 PM, Mohammed Aziz Parande wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> >> >> I am a graduate student in the Department of Information Systems at the >> University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC). I am doing research in the >> area of software engineering. I would very much appreciate if you could >> answer the following questions of mine: >> >> >> >> 1. I was wondering if Lucene has gone under any major restructuring/redesign >> initiative in its history. Restructuring/redesign initiative can be defined >> as a concerted effort during a time period in which major changes were >> applied to the code base to improve software architecture/design while >> little or no functional enhancement was made. > > Yes it has gone under a restructuring, but it also had other improvements > added. > >> >> >> >> 2. If the project has gone under such an initiative, then would it be >> possible for you to give the dates or revision/release numbers that are >> "right before" and "right after" this structuring effort? I would like to >> checkout the source code from the repository to compare structural >> measurements that belong to "before" and "after" snapshots. Note that the >> dates and revision/release numbers should be right before and right after >> the initiative because I would like to be able to isolate and observe the >> effects of this effort. >> > > See the 2.3.X releases, most notably the reworking of indexing. In Lucene 2.9 a lot of changes have been introduced which touched architecture (Analysis API from Token to Attribute, Per-Segment Search) and at the same time changed runtime behaviour. Yet, with 2.9 you can observe how this was introduced with full backwards compatibility for the most parts of lucene. You might find the Lucene 2.9 whitepaper from Lucid Imagination helpful in gives you a rather high level technical overview of what is new in 2.9 (http://www.lucidimagination.com/How-We-Can-Help/whitepaper). For technical details you still have to go into the sources.
> > HTH, > Grant
