Hi Paul,
It's unfortunate the code is larger than most contribs. The libraries
can be factored out. The next patch includes OceanDatabase. The
Ocean package and class names can be removed in favor of "realtime"?
> - There is a whole package of logging in there, but there's no logging
> in lucene at the moment.
Can be removed, in favor of the IndexWriter style logging? Is this
really the best way to go? Makes debugging more painful with no
automatic method and class insertion in the log entries. I can do it,
just thinking of other folks who work on it.
The locking and such uses JDK 1.5, I can downgrade it but for such
locking, and with 3.0 possibly coming out soon is that best?
> SearcherPolicy
It's a marker class like MergePolicy or Serializable
> - Individual authors are mentioned in the code, that's not lucene
> policy at the moment.
Agreed, Eclipse throws them in, I delete them, maybe some made it in.
Maybe the @author should be removed from FieldCacheImpl, FieldDoc, and
FieldCache.
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Paul Elschot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Op Saturday 06 September 2008 18:53:39 schreef Shalin Shekhar Mangar:
> ...
>>
>> The features are more important than the code but it will of course
>> help a lot too. I think a good starting point for us (Lucene/Solr
>> folks) would be to study Ocean's source and any documentation that
>> you can provide so that we can also suggest an optimal integration
>> strategy or alternate implementation ideas. Until now the bulk of
>> such work has been on your shoulders. I appreciate your patience and
>> the amount of work you have put in. These features will be a huge
>> value proposition for our users and a collaboration will be the good
>> for the community in the long term.
>
> Some experience from larger patches:
> - stepwise is good,
> - so plan for steps, in which
> - each step is improvement on its own.
>
> Then:
> - try to keep the first step as small as possible,
> - with some luck, someone else will improve the first step,
> - learn from the improvement,
> - repeat, and never hurry.
>
>
> Some comments on the current patch at LUCENE-1313:
> - Copyright is assigned to individual authors, better assign that to
> ASF.
> - Individual authors are mentioned in the code, that's not lucene
> policy at the moment.
> - Some files do not contain an ASF licence, not a real problem.
> - The directory structure could also be in contrib/ocean as
> top directory.
> - There is a whole package of logging in there, but there's no logging
> in lucene at the moment.
> - There is at least one empty class, SearcherPolicy.
> - Unseen so far:
> - the second half of the patch,
> - the java code within the class {...} statements (sorry.)
>
>
> Even though the patch is down to 25% of it's first size,
> it's still 474 kb, which is large by any standard. So the
> question is: is there a first step to be taken from this
> patch that would be an improvement on its own?
>
> Regards,
> Paul Elschot
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
