I agree with the majority here: Including something like snowball-analyzers.jar in Lucene distribution would be better than including it in a single Jar. Who's volunteering to do it, assuming we go with this, which seems to be what most people prefer?
Otis --- Tatu Saloranta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 19 March 2003 13:39, David Birtwell wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 19, 2003, at 03:26 PM, Doug Cutting wrote: > > > Shall we take a vote? Should the snowball analyzers be included > in > > > the base lucene jar file, or should they continue to be packaged > > > separately? > .. > > It might seem cleaner from a design perspective to put the Snoball > > analyzers in a second package, but I believe it would feel better > to a > > new Lucene user to have them folded into the base Lucene jar, or at > > least distributed with the base Lucene download. The analyzers > will > > feel more "sanctioned" that way and I believe users would have more > > confidence using them. Plus, it would be one less step to get > started > > with Lucene. > > > > It's like Ant and optional.jar. We all want to use JUnit tasks. > Why > > should we all be forced to download and install optional.jar? ;-) > > As long as it's on separate jar I'm fine either way. I don't think > those > classes should be put in 'main' lucene jar. > > -+ Tatu +- > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
