On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hmmm - thats starting to sound nastier. Its another barrier to upgrading to > a new jar. I have to monitor/hunt down and not miss all these little flags > so that docs/terms don't disappear from my index? There is already some of > that and I'd hate to see it grow. I'd rather have a stronger back compat > policy here I think. Its just one thing after another stacking up to make > upgrading a risk/pain at each jar update. I used to work on a project where > I upgraded Lucene often, and it was because it was so easy to keep dropping > in and picking new features as I wanted. We will really start pushing a > heavy onus onto our users if we fully adopt 1 and 2. New users will benefit, > but old users, unless they are Lucene hackers like you guys, will suffer. > Eventually our new users will be our old users. Well this is what I love about the actsAsVersion solution. There's no pain for our back-compat users (besides the one-time effort to set actsAsVersion), and new users always get the best settings. Or... we could consider encoding "actsAsVersion" into the index by default. Then, when IndexWriter asks the Analyzer for a tokenStream, it'd pass in the actsAsVersion, so that any tokenizers/filters in the chain would preserve their behavior as of that Lucene version. (You'd have to be able to turn this off, too). Mike --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
