Yonik Seeley wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com> wrote:
The computer should handle that
for me. It really should be as easy
as saying, look I want the best new defaults, or I want the back compat
defaults. The computer should figure
out the rest for me.
actsAsVersion ;-)
nice and back compatible.
Introduce Settings classes in the future when+where it makes sense.
-Yonik
I liked the idea of something along those lines. I fell out on some of
the discussion at the end as well though. Hard to keep up.
Even the static thing seemed fine to me - we do enough of that type of
thing in cases where it would be a lot less clear anyway.
Short of that, even passing a settings class in some form would probably
be fine. Its not like we don't already have a lot of constructors with a
lot of parameters.
I didn't like the idea on first blush, but frankly, its not even all
that bad.
I would certainly rather be able to throw a switch to get great
performance rather than run through documentation figuring out what I
have to toggle and change - repeat when new releases come out. You still
should pay attention of course, but hunting down all of the performance
'fixes' is a burden many will probably avoid. Especially those that are
evaluating Lucene or building their first system.
--
- Mark
http://www.lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
