Looking for community guidance on SOLR-4872

[Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>]

I write to seek guidance from the dev community on SOLR-4872.

This JIRA concerns lifecycle management for Solr schema components:
tokenizers, token filters, and char filters.

If you read the comments, you'll find three opinions from committers. What
follows are précis: read the JIRA to get the details.

Hoss is in favor of having close methods on these components and arranging
to have them called when a schema is torn down. Hoss is opposed to allowing
these objects to be SolrCoreAware.

Yonik is opposed to having such close methods and prefers SolrCoreAware, or
something like it, or letting component implementors use finalizers.

Rob Muir thinks that there should be a fix to the related LUCENE-2145,
which I see as complementary to this.

So, here I am. I'm not a committer. I'm a builder of Solr plugins, and,
from that standpoint, I think that there should be a lifecycle somehow,
because I try to apply a general principle of avoiding finalizers, and
because in some cases their unpredictable schedule can be a practical
problem.

Is there a committer in this community who is willing to work with me on
this? As things are, I can't see how to proceed, since I'm suspended
between two committers with apparently opposed views.

I have already implemented what I think of as the hard part, and, indeed,
the foundation of either approach. I have a close lifecycle that extends
down to the IndexSchema object and the TokenizerChain. So it remains to
decide whether that should in turn call ordinary close methods on the
tokenizers, token filters, and char filters, or rather look for some
optional lifecycle interface.

Re: Looking for community guidance on SOLR-4872

[Shawn Heisey <so...@elyograg.org>]

On 7/8/2013 7:14 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> Dear Lucene Community,
>
> I note that this email has received no response, and the JIRA no further
> discussion, since June 19th. As an occasional contributor to this
> community, I think that this is unreasonable. My personal belief is that
> the Apache Way calls for you to decide something here: use a vote if
> needed. You might decide to do _nothing_ at all, but you won't just
> leave me waving in the breeze. I suppose that _I_ could call a vote
> here, but as a non-committer it would seem presumptuous of me. Also, I
> might not find a committer willing to act on it.

For me, this issue is beyond my skill set.  I don't understand the 
solutions, because I have never delved into it.  I would love to help, 
but because of my lack of experience, I really can't.  I do have a 
family and a real job, too.

For the rest of the devs, I offer this as a possible explanation, not as 
an excuse:  It is high summer in the northern hemisphere.  For the US, 
this is prime vacation time.  I'm clueless about Europe, but it's 
probably the same there.  If someone is in vacation mode, they may chime 
in from time to time, but they won't be putting heavy work or lots of 
thought in.

Thanks,
Shawn


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org

Re: Looking for community guidance on SOLR-4872

[Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>]

Dear Lucene Community,

I note that this email has received no response, and the JIRA no further
discussion, since June 19th. As an occasional contributor to this
community, I think that this is unreasonable. My personal belief is that
the Apache Way calls for you to decide something here: use a vote if
needed. You might decide to do _nothing_ at all, but you won't just leave
me waving in the breeze. I suppose that _I_ could call a vote here, but as
a non-committer it would seem presumptuous of me. Also, I might not find a
committer willing to act on it.

Respectfully,

Benson



On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>wrote:

> I write to seek guidance from the dev community on SOLR-4872.
>
> This JIRA concerns lifecycle management for Solr schema components:
> tokenizers, token filters, and char filters.
>
> If you read the comments, you'll find three opinions from committers. What
> follows are précis: read the JIRA to get the details.
>
> Hoss is in favor of having close methods on these components and arranging
> to have them called when a schema is torn down. Hoss is opposed to allowing
> these objects to be SolrCoreAware.
>
> Yonik is opposed to having such close methods and prefers SolrCoreAware,
> or something like it, or letting component implementors use finalizers.
>
> Rob Muir thinks that there should be a fix to the related LUCENE-2145,
> which I see as complementary to this.
>
> So, here I am. I'm not a committer. I'm a builder of Solr plugins, and,
> from that standpoint, I think that there should be a lifecycle somehow,
> because I try to apply a general principle of avoiding finalizers, and
> because in some cases their unpredictable schedule can be a practical
> problem.
>
> Is there a committer in this community who is willing to work with me on
> this? As things are, I can't see how to proceed, since I'm suspended
> between two committers with apparently opposed views.
>
> I have already implemented what I think of as the hard part, and, indeed,
> the foundation of either approach. I have a close lifecycle that extends
> down to the IndexSchema object and the TokenizerChain. So it remains to
> decide whether that should in turn call ordinary close methods on the
> tokenizers, token filters, and char filters, or rather look for some
> optional lifecycle interface.
>
>
>