Nelson's comments are very similar to my initial reaction. Our attraction to Lucene was that it was compact, easy to understand and easy to integrate into our development effort. I think it is important to maintain a way to approach Lucene as an indexing library. I don't think your proposal goes against this idea - but it doesn't mention it either.
Having said that, I think the proposal is great. I don't think this 'application level' effort should have to be in complete isolation from the 'indexing library level'. They should live in 'symbioses' (as the jedi would say.) Regards, Philip -----Original Message----- From: Nelson Minar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 8:52 AM To: Lucene Developers List Subject: Re: Proposal for Lucene >This is just a few thoughts about Lucene. Please send me your feedback, >critiques and thought. >http://www.trilug.org/~acoliver/luceneplan.html Interesting and well written! If I read this proposal correctly, what you're saying is "make Lucene more into an application, rather than just an indexing library". I *like* that Lucene doesn't have a spider, or a file tree walker, etc etc. It's conceptual simplicity. I agree it'd be useful to have easy applications built with Lucene, but should it be done as part of Lucene itself or as a separate project? In either event I think it's important to preserve Lucene's current library interfaces. If the primary interface into Lucene were via the proposed Indexer classes, I think Lucene would lose something. [EMAIL PROTECTED] . . . . . . . . http://www.media.mit.edu/~nelson/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
