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 03:26:35 GMT
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