lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Itamar Syn-Hershko <ita...@code972.com>
Subject Re: Removing LuceneVersion.LUCENE_48 from external API?
Date Thu, 10 Nov 2016 07:12:06 GMT
Yes, but that essentially means changing them methods signatures since it's
the first parameter and default arguments need to be last


--

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

On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 11:07 PM, Shad Storhaug <shad@shadstorhaug.com>
wrote:

> 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message