HoustonPutman commented on PR #1793: URL: https://github.com/apache/solr/pull/1793#issuecomment-1651953719
> Would this come to Solr 9 albeit in an opt-in module users would try (not required by SolrJ), then embrace it in Solr 10? So the part used by users, being the actual clients that is generated code, will be packaged in SolrJ core (not a separate solrj module), so it can't really be opt-out. SolrJ core also doesn't need to depend on this `solrj-model` or `solrj-api` module, so that doesn't need to be opt-in or opt-out, only `solr-core` (and possibly Solr Modules) would depend on this new SolrJ module. > Might "Api" be a better name for this module? "Model" seems abstract. I think I agree here. > Putting "I" before the interfaces is something I normally kinda hate but if it's only a practice to be used here then I can accept it but not like it. Maybe "Api" prefix or suffix or none at all? I also really don't like the "I" thing. though, I'm not really sure what would be better. Maybe if we have an automated gradle check that ensures that the class starts with "I". I just want to make sure everything stays consistent. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
