You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to solr-dev@lucene.apache.org by "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov> on 2009/12/30 18:16:56 UTC
[VOTE] SOLR-1602 Refactor SOLR package structure to include
o.a.solr.response and move QueryResponseWriters in there
Hi All,
I've reported SOLR-1602, the jist of which is to move all the response
writers into a new package, o.a.solr.response (and also move
SolrQueryResponse in there).
We know what's required to do this:
SOLR-1602 proposed plan
=====================================================================
1. indicate this change in CHANGES.txt as a breaking change for any
consumers of these classes from prior versions of SOLR
2. configuration update
There are 8 response writers defined by default in solrconfig.xml. That
doesn't seem too unwieldy a job for find/replace as far as configuration
upgrades for someone moving from SOLR x.y to SOLR 1.5. Notify the users of
this config update in CHANGES.txt.
3. code update for those folks who've implemented their own response writers
As for code, yes, unfortunately users will have to recompile their response
writers and update a few package names/imports per response writer which
they'd probably want/have to do anyways on an upgrade regardless. Also
notify the users of this required code update in CHANGES.txt.
4. regarding deprecation
You could certainly leave present response classes in o.a.solr.request and
make them extend the newly moved classes and deprecate those classes in
o.a.solr.request (as specified in the issue comments), and I've done it
before in other projects. The tradeoff is, what type of message from the
Java compiler do you want to notify you as a consumer of the SOLR java
classes:
1. A deprecation (that could easily get swallowed if someone compiles with
deprecation notifications off)
2. A compiler error, forcing the user to perform the small amount of
legwork to update package refs
I'm a fan of 4.2, and I'd venture to guess the work wouldn't be too bad in
this case since most of the ReponseWriters aren't friendly to user extension
or sub-classing. Notify the users of this in CHANGES.txt
=====================================================================
Here's what you're voting on:
[ ] Yes, move forward with SOLR-1602 with the plan proposed above
[ ] No, don't move forward with SOLR-1602 because...
I'll leave the vote open for 72 hours. Votes from SOLR committers are
binding, but everyone is welcome to voice your opinion.
Cheers,
Chris
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: Chris.Mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov
WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Re: [VOTE] SOLR-1602 Refactor SOLR package structure to include
o.a.solr.response and move QueryResponseWriters in there
Posted by Noble Paul നോബിള് नोब्ळ् <no...@corp.aol.com>.
I have not taken a look at the patch (could not apply it) . But I am
in agreement with the idea of moving responsewriters to a new package.
Just that the changes should be backward compatible
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Ryan McKinley <ry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Here's what you're voting on:
>>
>> [ x] Yes, move forward with SOLR-1602 with the plan proposed above
>> [ ] No, don't move forward with SOLR-1602 because...
>>
>> I'll leave the vote open for 72 hours. Votes from SOLR committers are
>> binding, but everyone is welcome to voice your opinion.
>
> Not to throw cold water on the formality... but.. when I suggested we get
> broader approval, i was not thinking about jumping into a formal vote...
>
> Seems odd to put a three day window while many people are on vacation :)
>
> ryan
>
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Noble Paul | Systems Architect| AOL | http://aol.com
Re: [VOTE] SOLR-1602 Refactor SOLR package structure to include
o.a.solr.response and move QueryResponseWriters in there
Posted by "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
Hi Ryan,
>
> Not to throw cold water on the formality... but.. when I suggested we
> get broader approval, i was not thinking about jumping into a formal
> vote...
Ah, the Apache way :)
>
> Seems odd to put a three day window while many people are on vacation :)
I hear you, but based on mail traffic the past week or so it seems that many
of the active committers (or at least a majority of them for SOLR [yonik,
you, hoss, erik, grant, mark, shalin, noble]) are around...
Cheers,
Chris
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: Chris.Mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov
WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Re: [VOTE] SOLR-1602 Refactor SOLR package structure to include o.a.solr.response and move QueryResponseWriters in there
Posted by Ryan McKinley <ry...@gmail.com>.
>
> Here's what you're voting on:
>
> [ x] Yes, move forward with SOLR-1602 with the plan proposed above
> [ ] No, don't move forward with SOLR-1602 because...
>
> I'll leave the vote open for 72 hours. Votes from SOLR committers are
> binding, but everyone is welcome to voice your opinion.
Not to throw cold water on the formality... but.. when I suggested we
get broader approval, i was not thinking about jumping into a formal
vote...
Seems odd to put a three day window while many people are on vacation :)
ryan