[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1678?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12717862#action_12717862
]
Earwin Burrfoot commented on LUCENE-1678:
-----------------------------------------
bq. If there are sane/smart ways to change our back compat policy, I think you
have seen that no one would object.
It's not a matter of finding a smart way. It is a matter of sacrifice that has
to be made and readiness to take the blame for decision that can be unpopular
with someone.
You go zealously for back-compat - you sacrifice readability/maintainability of
your code but free users from any troubles when they want to 'simply upgrade'.
You adopt more relaxed policy - you sacrifice users' time, but in return you
gain cleaner codebase and new stuff can be written and used faster.
There's no way to ride two horses at once.
Some people are comfortable with current policies. Few cringe when they hear
things like above. Most theoretically want to relax the rules. Nobody's ready
to give up something for it.
Okay, there's an escape hatch I (and someone else) mentioned on the list
before. Adopting a fixed release cycle with small intervals between releases
(compared to what we have now). Fixed - as in, releases are made each N months
instead of when everyone feels they finished and polished up all their pet
projects and there's nothing else exciting to do. That way we can keep the
current policy, but deletion-through-deprecation approach will work, at last!
This solution is halfassed, I can already see discussions like "That was a big
change, let's keep the deprecates around longer, say - for a couple of
releases.", it doesn't solve good-name-thrashing problem, as you have to go
through two rounds of deprecation to change semantics on something, but keep
the name.
But this is something better than what we have now, a-a-and this is something
that needs commiter backing.
bq. Thats a great indication to me that the issue is not simple.
The issue is simple, the choice is not. And maintaining status quo is free.
bq. Giving up is really not the answer though
It is the answer. I have no moral right to hammer my ideals into heads that did
tremendously more for the project, than I did. And maintaining a patch queue
over Lucene trunk is not 'that' hard.
> Deprecate Analyzer.tokenStream
> ------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1678
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1678
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Analysis
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Assignee: Michael McCandless
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 2.9
>
>
> The addition of reusableTokenStream to the core analyzers unfortunately broke
> back compat of external subclasses:
>
> http://www.nabble.com/Extending-StandardAnalyzer-considered-harmful-td23863822.html
> On upgrading, such subclasses would silently not be used anymore, since
> Lucene's indexing invokes reusableTokenStream.
> I think we should should at least deprecate Analyzer.tokenStream, today, so
> that users see deprecation warnings if their classes override this method.
> But going forward when we want to change the API of core classes that are
> extended, I think we have to introduce entirely new classes, to keep back
> compatibility.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
