Hi, This interface vs. abstract class and maintenance/backwards compatibility question comes up pretty often. I suggest using markmail.org and searching for things like: interface abstract solr -jira interface abstract lucene -jira
I think that will lead to some explanations without anyone having to go into this discussion again. Otis -- Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch ----- Original Message ---- > From: Alexander Ramos Jardim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Sent: Monday, June 9, 2008 3:19:36 PM > Subject: Re: Problems in solrJ trunk > > Well, > > There is a simple case here. I tried to update SolrJ to use the last one and > got the application selected for test broke. So, I developed an alternative > interface for SolrServer and a wrapper to CommonsHttpSolrServer. Altered my > aoolication to use it and everything is working nice. > > When you use good pratices like IoC or AOP it is preferred to program > interface oriented. > > Sorry, but I find it really bad to go from an interface to a an abstract > class. > > In my modest opinion, SolrServer should have both. Like SolrServer being an > interface and AbstractSolrServer implementing it. CommonsHttpSolrServer > would extend AbstractSolrServer. > > If the dev team really thinks interfaces are an ass, I think we will have > problems using Solr with other advanced OO features. > > 2008/6/7 Ryan McKinley : > > > solrj was not released in 1.2, so the change is not incompatible... > > > > The rationalle for abstract class vs interface is more to do with usage and > > future maintenance. If SolrServer is an interface and solr 1.4 adds > > methods, there is no way to make it backwards compatible -- as an abstract > > class, we can add a reasonable default behavior. > > > > Since SolrServer is a rather involved action, it seems like it will tend to > > be a standalone class. Interfaces are great for OO clarity, but very > > difficult to maintain. > > > > Is there a good usage case we are not thinking of before this gets baked > > into 1.3? > > > > ryan > > > > > > > > On Jun 7, 2008, at 2:13 PM, Alexander Ramos Jardim wrote: > > > >> Hello, > >> > >> Shouldn't SolrServer be an interface that externalizes the signatures for > >> classes like CommonsHttpSolrServer, like it was in solr-1.2? Why did it > >> became an abstract class? > >> I can't see any benefit from it, as now I need to type the object as > >> CommonsHttpSolrServer directly. > >> I think it is really bad. > >> -- > >> Alexander Ramos Jardim > >> > > > > > > > -- > Alexander Ramos Jardim
