lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shad Storhaug <s...@shadstorhaug.com>
Subject RE: Removing LuceneVersion.LUCENE_48 from external API?
Date Thu, 10 Nov 2016 07:07:52 GMT
Itamar,

I think for those rare cases, we should leave it in. But, it would be a good idea to add overloads
that default them to the current version so most users get a streamlined experience.

You mentioned that you were "removing" them, I hope that you meant that you are simply providing
overloads that don't have them so they are not required.

Thanks,
Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888)

-----Original Message-----
From: itamar.synhershko@gmail.com [mailto:itamar.synhershko@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Itamar
Syn-Hershko
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2016 10:27 AM
To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
Subject: Re: Removing LuceneVersion.LUCENE_48 from external API?

It's a required argument for those methods - while I think it's too verbose there as well,
at least it makes sense because they have many versions. We don't really need it because we
only have one version, except from the rare cases backwards supporting indexes that are shared
with Java code that maintains them.

--

Itamar Syn-Hershko
http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko> Freelance Developer
& Consultant Lucene.NET committer and PMC member

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 6:02 AM, Wyatt Barnett <wyatt.barnett@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I think making it an optional parameter sounds like a good idea on the 
> surface. How does the java library handle this?
>
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 3:39 PM Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hey folks,
> >
> > I'm working on some demos, and one things that keeps popping up and 
> > to be frank gets quite annoying is the requirement to specify
> > LuceneVersion.LUCENE_48 on all public APIs - opening a readers and
> writers,
> > analyzers, etc.
> >
> > Since we only have one version release, and that concept is not 
> > going to
> be
> > really useful anyway, what do you say we remove (or set a default 
> > value
> for
> > it) on all public facing APIs?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > --
> >
> > Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko> 
> > Freelance Developer & Consultant Lucene.NET committer and PMC member
> >
>
Mime
View raw message