Is it possible to mark out backwards-incompatible changes with deprecation? So at least we get warnings in Eclipse/Netbeans etc?
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ryan McKinley wrote: > > Ahh, I see: > > Tokenizer extends TokenStream > > > > So if this is going to break everything that implements TokenStream > > rather then Tokenizer, it seems we should change the TokenizerFactory > > API from: > > public Tokenizer create( Reader input ) > > rather then: > > public TokenStream create( Reader input ); > > > > I would WAY rather have my compiler tell me something is wrong then > > get an error and then find some documentation about the tokenizer. > > > > - - - - - > > > > Personally, I think lucene/solr just need to fess up and admit that > > 2.9 is *not* totally back compatible. > I don't think anyone contends that Lucene is totally backcompat - and > insofarasthatgoes there is no way Solr totally is - . it exposes a lot > of Lucene. > > We admit our breaks in this release in the back compat breaks section. > There is no way we will release claiming total back compat. Not even in > the realm of possibility. > > No way is the Multireader change back-compatible! > > Personally, pure API wise - I think it was. Its a stickier issue on the > possible more RAM usage - but too me, thats more of a Runtime change. > Certain methods have always changed over time in their resource usage, > and I think thats within back compat. This was a steep one to swallow > though, I'll admit. Basically we just thought it was way worth it long > term. And Hoss came up with some great ideas to help ease the possible > pain. > > > > ryan > > > > > > On Aug 21, 2009, at 11:39 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Ryan McKinley<ryan...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>> I'm fine upgrading, but it seems we should the 'back compatibility' > >>> notice more explicit. > >> > >> Yeah... that should be fun for expert-use plugins in general. In > >> Lucene-land, this is the release of the "break"... I think we've > >> covered the changes reasonably well in our external APIs, but people > >> can always use pretty much the full Lucene API when writing Solr > >> plugins. > >> > >> I think we'll need to document that things in <tokenizer> tags need to > >> inherit from Tokenizer classes. It is technically a back-compat > >> break, but I assume it will affect very few users? > >> > >> -Yonik > >> http://www.lucidimagination.com > > > > > -- > - Mark > > http://www.lucidimagination.com > > > > -- Lance Norskog goks...@gmail.com
