chatman commented on pull request #1684:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/pull/1684#issuecomment-687329334
I withdraw all outstanding concerns. Verbosity, clunkiness of configuration
etc are all my "perceptions" that I don't want to come in the way of the
completion of this
chatman commented on pull request #1684:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/pull/1684#issuecomment-686808345
> Wow. I'm not even sure that would be polite to say to a junior engineer
(that may be presumed to not know concurrency) than a very senior one here. I
think you know full
chatman commented on pull request #1684:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/pull/1684#issuecomment-686380223
I broadly agree with those principals, and I'm sure everyone does.
>1. placement plugin writing is easy,
Agree, but not at the cost of complicated server side
chatman commented on pull request #1684:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/pull/1684#issuecomment-686357674
> Please also remember that we are on a deadline - we need to have some kind
of replacement for the autoscaling in 9.0.
+1, this is the cause for maximum urgency at
chatman commented on pull request #1684:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/pull/1684#issuecomment-686355702
> @noblepaul & @chatman I find the tone of your latest comments offensive -
that's no way to build a consensus. Please think twice before posting and calm
down - if you
chatman commented on pull request #1684:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/pull/1684#issuecomment-686320915
> Yeah, the solution to API surface area problem is to make them inner
classes/interfaces. This is such a elegant & simple proposition. We should try
the same in other
chatman commented on pull request #1684:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/pull/1684#issuecomment-686316250
> If the plugin requests data node by node, it's either sequential or forces
the plugin to implement the concurrency mechanism itself, making it more
complicated.
chatman commented on pull request #1684:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/pull/1684#issuecomment-686308531
> You need to make a realistic proposal here IMO @noblepaul.
> And we need something that already exists. If placement plugins depend on
some
> future rehaul of
