OK, this vote has passed. I will open an issue and provide a patch.
-Grant
On Jul 30, 2008, at 8:44 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
As they say, rules are meant to be broken...
For a variety of reasons, some outlined below, I (and others) would
like us to break our back compatibility requirements and allow for
modifying the Fieldable interface in 2.x releases with the 3.x plan
to be to separate out write side interfaces from read side
interfaces per Hoss' suggestion in http://lucene.markmail.org/message/77qs2pjy3inzfddj?q=Fieldable%2C+AbstractField
.
Our reasons are based on LUCENE-1340, LUCENE-1219 and
http://lucene.markmail.org/message/77qs2pjy3inzfddj?q=Fieldable%2C+AbstractField
Simply put, my gut says there are almost no implementations of
Fieldable "in the wild", and those that are won't mind a few lines
of code change here and there to accommodate Fieldable changing
(since Fields really are just simple data structures and don't due
much algorithmically, except maybe LazyField)
Thus, here's the vote part:
1. We mark Fieldable as being subject to change. We heavily
advertise (on java-dev and java-user and maybe general) that in the
next minor release of Lucene (2.4), Fieldable will be changing. It
is also marked at the top of CHANGES.txt very clearly for all the
world to see. Since 2.4 is probably at least a month away, I think
this gives anyone with a pulse enough time to react.
2. We thus allow 1340 and 1219 to go forward, and maybe some others.
3. [OPTIONAL] We commit to rethinking input Documents and output
Documents for 3.x per Hoss' design suggestions in the email thread
above. At a minimum, it becomes an abstract base class.
+1 to all 3 items from me.
-Grant
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
