On May 19, 2009, at 1:51 PM, Michael McCandless wrote:
I think you've moved onto discussing something different: should we relax our back compat policy. I'm all for that discussion, but it's different from "given our back compat policy, how can we implement it w/o harming new users of Lucene".
I don't agree. Your proposing to go off and do a bunch of work to "fix the back compat" problem that has to do with our policies, not with our code. In reality if were more pragmatic about back compat. there would be less of a need for it.
Sure, maybe it would still make sense to be able to emulate a certain setting from a version, but with a more relaxed back compat it might not even be possible to do that b/c the old code doesn't even exist and the user has no choice (well, they can not upgrade) but to use the better way b/c, as you pointed out, we want people to have the best possible experience with Lucene. For instance, deprecated code could easily be removed sooner by saying: @deprecated Will be removed in Version X.Y. Use Z instead. Seriously, it's May of '09 and we have deprecated constructors on IndexWriter that have been that way since January of 2008. And, at the rate we're getting to 2.9 and 3.0, it will be 2010 before they are even removed.
-Grant --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
