+1 on the Analyzers as well. Earwin, I think I don't mind if we introduce migrate() elsewhere rather than on IW. What I meant to say is that if we stick w/ index format back-compat and ongoing migration, then such a method would be useful on IW for customers to call to ensure they're on the latest version. But if the majority here agree w/ a standalone tool, then I'm ok if it sits elsewhere.
Grant, I'm all for 'just doing it and see what happens'. But I think we need to at least decide what we're going to do so it's clear to everyone. Because I'd like to know if I'm about to propose an index format change, whether I need to build migration tool or not. Actually, I'd like to know if people like Robert (basically those who have no problem to reindex and don't understand the fuss around it) will want to change the index format - can I count on them to be asked to provide such tool? That's to me a policy we should decide on ... whatever the consequences. But +1 for changing something ! Analyzers at first, API second. Shai On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Michael McCandless < luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > for now simply moving analyzers to its own jar filE would be a great > step! > > +1 -- why not consolidate all analyzers now? (And fix indexer to > require a minimal API = TokenStream minus reset & close). > > Mike > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
