Mark, I'll see if I can get tests produced for some of those analyzers. as a new user of the new api myself, I think I can safely say the most confusing thing about it is having the old deprecated API mixed in the javadocs with it :)
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Mark Miller<markrmil...@gmail.com> wrote: > Robert Muir wrote: >> >> Mark, I created an issue for this. >> > > Thanks Robert, great idea. >> >> I just think you know, converting an analyzer to the new api is really >> not that bad. >> > > I don't either. I'm really just complaining about the initial readability. > Once you know whats up, its not too much different. I just have found myself > having to refigure out whats up (a short task to be sure) over again after I > leave it for a while. With the old one, everything was just kind of > immediately self evident. > > That makes me think new users might be a little more confused when they > first meet again. I'm not a new user though, so its only a guess really. >> >> reverse engineering what one of them does is not necessarily obvious, >> and is completely unrelated but necessary if they are to be migrated. >> >> I'd be willing to assist with some of this but I don't want to really >> work the issue if its gonna be a waste of time at the end of the >> day... >> > > The chances of this issue being fully reverted are so remote that I really > wouldnt let that stop you ... >> >> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Mark Miller<markrmil...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> Robert Muir wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>> As Lucene's contrib hasn't been fully converted either (and its been >>>>> quite >>>>> some time now), someone has probably heard that groan before. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> hope this doesn't sound like a complaint, >>>> >>> >>> Complaints are fine in any case. Every now and then, it might cause a >>> little >>> rant from me or something, but please don't let that dissuade you :) >>> Who doesnt like to rant and rave now and then. As long as thoughts and >>> opinions are coming out in a non negative way (which certainly includes >>> complaints), >>> I think its all good. >>> >>>> >>>> but in my opinion this is >>>> because many do not have any tests. >>>> I converted a few of these and its just grunt work but if there are no >>>> tests, its impossible to verify the conversion is correct. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Thanks for pointing that out. We probably get lazy with tests, especially >>> in >>> contrib, and this brings up a good point - we should probably push >>> for tests or write them before committing more often. Sometimes I'm sure >>> it >>> just comes downto a tradeoff though - no resources at the time, >>> the class looked clear cut, and it was just contrib anyway. But then here >>> we >>> are ... a healthy dose of grunt work is bad enough when you have tests to >>> check it. >>> >>> -- >>> - 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 >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > - 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 > > -- Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
