Local Lucene and Local Solr

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Local Lucene and Local Solr

Grant Ingersoll-2
The creators of Local Lucene and Local Solr (http://www.nsshutdown.com/projects/lucene/whitepaper/locallucene.htm 
) have generously agreed to donate the code to Lucene.

The Lucene PMC is working through the details of the software grant.  
The one remaining road block, potentially, is that there is still some  
LGPL code involved that needs to be replaced.   We could commit this  
before removing it, as long as we don't release it.  So, if there are  
volunteers willing to do the work, I'd be more inclined to move  
forward w/ finishing out the grant and committing it.

In the meantime, I would like to open the discussion of where this  
should live in Lucene.

The options are:

1. Split them up and make them each a part of Lucene and Solr and let  
the committers of those projects decide where things go
2. Create a separate Geo search subproject under Lucene TLP with it's  
own set of committers, etc. just like any of the other sub projects  
(Solr, Tika, Java, etc.)  This requires the PMC to vote to create a  
new subproject.
3. Other?

So, what do people think?  Where would you like to see Local Search  
live w.r.t. Lucene and Solr?


-Grant






Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Local Lucene and Local Solr

Yonik Seeley-2
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Grant Ingersoll <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The creators of Local Lucene and Local Solr
> (http://www.nsshutdown.com/projects/lucene/whitepaper/locallucene.htm) have
> generously agreed to donate the code to Lucene.
>
> The Lucene PMC is working through the details of the software grant.  The
> one remaining road block, potentially, is that there is still some LGPL code
> involved that needs to be replaced.   We could commit this before removing
> it, as long as we don't release it.

I don't see the point in committing unless we can release it.  The
contribution lives in a JIRA issue, and people can/should create other
JIRA issues to work on it.  Just as any other large/complex
contributions, it should be reviewed first by developers before a
commit anyway.

As to where, from the Solr point of view, a geosearch feature seems
core, thus it should go in Solr core.

-Yonik
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Local Lucene and Local Solr

Michael McCandless-2
In reply to this post by Grant Ingersoll-2

I like #1 best.

I think it's important to allow users of just Lucene to do searches  
with geo queries/filtering/sorting easily.

Mike

Grant Ingersoll wrote:

> The creators of Local Lucene and Local Solr (http://www.nsshutdown.com/projects/lucene/whitepaper/locallucene.htm 
> ) have generously agreed to donate the code to Lucene.
>
> The Lucene PMC is working through the details of the software  
> grant.  The one remaining road block, potentially, is that there is  
> still some LGPL code involved that needs to be replaced.   We could  
> commit this before removing it, as long as we don't release it.  So,  
> if there are volunteers willing to do the work, I'd be more inclined  
> to move forward w/ finishing out the grant and committing it.
>
> In the meantime, I would like to open the discussion of where this  
> should live in Lucene.
>
> The options are:
>
> 1. Split them up and make them each a part of Lucene and Solr and  
> let the committers of those projects decide where things go
> 2. Create a separate Geo search subproject under Lucene TLP with  
> it's own set of committers, etc. just like any of the other sub  
> projects (Solr, Tika, Java, etc.)  This requires the PMC to vote to  
> create a new subproject.
> 3. Other?
>
> So, what do people think?  Where would you like to see Local Search  
> live w.r.t. Lucene and Solr?
>
>
> -Grant
>
>
>
>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Local Lucene and Local Solr

Otis Gospodnetic-2
In reply to this post by Grant Ingersoll-2
1. sounds like the right choice to me.  On the topic of committing early, would committing it and allowing people to svn up/co, build locally, and implement the missing pieces not get us faster to the point of being able to release it?


Otis
--
Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch



----- Original Message ----

> From: Grant Ingersoll <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 11:41:10 AM
> Subject: Local Lucene and Local Solr
>
> The creators of Local Lucene and Local Solr
> (http://www.nsshutdown.com/projects/lucene/whitepaper/locallucene.htm 
> ) have generously agreed to donate the code to Lucene.
>
> The Lucene PMC is working through the details of the software grant.  
> The one remaining road block, potentially, is that there is still some  
> LGPL code involved that needs to be replaced.   We could commit this  
> before removing it, as long as we don't release it.  So, if there are  
> volunteers willing to do the work, I'd be more inclined to move  
> forward w/ finishing out the grant and committing it.
>
> In the meantime, I would like to open the discussion of where this  
> should live in Lucene.
>
> The options are:
>
> 1. Split them up and make them each a part of Lucene and Solr and let  
> the committers of those projects decide where things go
> 2. Create a separate Geo search subproject under Lucene TLP with it's  
> own set of committers, etc. just like any of the other sub projects  
> (Solr, Tika, Java, etc.)  This requires the PMC to vote to create a  
> new subproject.
> 3. Other?
>
> So, what do people think?  Where would you like to see Local Search  
> live w.r.t. Lucene and Solr?
>
>
> -Grant

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Local Lucene and Local Solr

Grant Ingersoll-2
Yes, that is true, but the main issue will then be "how to not release  
it" if the parent project (i.e. Lucene and Solr) does a release.  I  
could see how that could be annoying and error prone, especially if  
the fixes don't happen right away.  Of course, we could commit them to  
an alternative location until the issue is resolved.  I imagine there  
is going to be a fair amount of work to split them up and integrate  
anyway, so the alternative location could help there.


-Grant

On Aug 25, 2008, at 1:20 PM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote:

> 1. sounds like the right choice to me.  On the topic of committing  
> early, would committing it and allowing people to svn up/co, build  
> locally, and implement the missing pieces not get us faster to the  
> point of being able to release it?
>
>
> Otis
> --
> Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Grant Ingersoll <[hidden email]>
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 11:41:10 AM
>> Subject: Local Lucene and Local Solr
>>
>> The creators of Local Lucene and Local Solr
>> (http://www.nsshutdown.com/projects/lucene/whitepaper/locallucene.htm
>> ) have generously agreed to donate the code to Lucene.
>>
>> The Lucene PMC is working through the details of the software grant.
>> The one remaining road block, potentially, is that there is still  
>> some
>> LGPL code involved that needs to be replaced.   We could commit this
>> before removing it, as long as we don't release it.  So, if there are
>> volunteers willing to do the work, I'd be more inclined to move
>> forward w/ finishing out the grant and committing it.
>>
>> In the meantime, I would like to open the discussion of where this
>> should live in Lucene.
>>
>> The options are:
>>
>> 1. Split them up and make them each a part of Lucene and Solr and let
>> the committers of those projects decide where things go
>> 2. Create a separate Geo search subproject under Lucene TLP with it's
>> own set of committers, etc. just like any of the other sub projects
>> (Solr, Tika, Java, etc.)  This requires the PMC to vote to create a
>> new subproject.
>> 3. Other?
>>
>> So, what do people think?  Where would you like to see Local Search
>> live w.r.t. Lucene and Solr?
>>
>>
>> -Grant
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Local Lucene and Local Solr

Yonik Seeley-2
The code has been contributed - no need to do a premature commit anywhere else.

The next steps would be for interested developers to open up JIRA
issues and work toward something that can be committed.

-Yonik
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Local Lucene and Local Solr

hossman
In reply to this post by Yonik Seeley-2

: As to where, from the Solr point of view, a geosearch feature seems
: core, thus it should go in Solr core.

if i remember correctly,the LocalSolr has been designed/built as a
"plugin" so it doesn't actually need to live in the "core" Solr code base
... it can be a Solr contrib ... but i agree it would probably makethe
most sense for "Local Lucene" to be a Lucene-Java contrib and "Local Solr"
to be a Solr contrib ... haveing a seperate "Geo" subproject might make
sense from a code management standpoint, but not really from a
dependency/release management or user base standpoint ... either people want to use
LocalLucene directly (in which case they don't care about the Solr pieces)
or they care about using Local Solr (and don't know they care about the
Lucene piece)


-Hoss

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Local Lucene and Local Solr

Grant Ingersoll-2
So, the consensus seems to be to split into contrib modules for Lucene  
Java and Lucene Solr.  I just need to finish up the paperwork over in  
incubation and then I think we can seek out volunteers on the two  
lists to do the splitting in conjunction with the people donating the  
code.

-Grant

On Aug 25, 2008, at 2:24 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:

>
> : As to where, from the Solr point of view, a geosearch feature seems
> : core, thus it should go in Solr core.
>
> if i remember correctly,the LocalSolr has been designed/built as a
> "plugin" so it doesn't actually need to live in the "core" Solr code  
> base
> ... it can be a Solr contrib ... but i agree it would probably makethe
> most sense for "Local Lucene" to be a Lucene-Java contrib and "Local  
> Solr"
> to be a Solr contrib ... haveing a seperate "Geo" subproject might  
> make
> sense from a code management standpoint, but not really from a
> dependency/release management or user base standpoint ... either  
> people want to use
> LocalLucene directly (in which case they don't care about the Solr  
> pieces)
> or they care about using Local Solr (and don't know they care about  
> the
> Lucene piece)
>
>
> -Hoss
>

--------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.lucidimagination.com

Lucene Helpful Hints:
http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/BasicsOfPerformance
http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/LuceneFAQ







Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Local Lucene and Local Solr

Grant Ingersoll-2
OK, I have completed the software grant for Local Lucene.  See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1387

At this point, there needs to be one or more volunteers to pick up  
doing the work via patches on the issue.

-Grant


On Sep 2, 2008, at 12:43 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:

> So, the consensus seems to be to split into contrib modules for  
> Lucene Java and Lucene Solr.  I just need to finish up the paperwork  
> over in incubation and then I think we can seek out volunteers on  
> the two lists to do the splitting in conjunction with the people  
> donating the code.
>
> -Grant
>
> On Aug 25, 2008, at 2:24 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
>
>>
>> : As to where, from the Solr point of view, a geosearch feature seems
>> : core, thus it should go in Solr core.
>>
>> if i remember correctly,the LocalSolr has been designed/built as a
>> "plugin" so it doesn't actually need to live in the "core" Solr  
>> code base
>> ... it can be a Solr contrib ... but i agree it would probably  
>> makethe
>> most sense for "Local Lucene" to be a Lucene-Java contrib and  
>> "Local Solr"
>> to be a Solr contrib ... haveing a seperate "Geo" subproject might  
>> make
>> sense from a code management standpoint, but not really from a
>> dependency/release management or user base standpoint ... either  
>> people want to use
>> LocalLucene directly (in which case they don't care about the Solr  
>> pieces)
>> or they care about using Local Solr (and don't know they care about  
>> the
>> Lucene piece)
>>
>>
>> -Hoss
>>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Local Lucene and Local Solr

marcus clemens-2

hi
 
i am looking for a Lucene Solr consultant to work onsite in west london for at least 6 months . rates are around 400- 500 a day
 
olease call me on 01892 752730 if this is of any interset
 
kind regards
 
marcus clemens
> From: [hidden email]> To: [hidden email]> Subject: Re: Local Lucene and Local Solr> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:11:49 -0400> > OK, I have completed the software grant for Local Lucene. See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1387> > At this point, there needs to be one or more volunteers to pick up > doing the work via patches on the issue.> > -Grant> > > On Sep 2, 2008, at 12:43 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:> > > So, the consensus seems to be to split into contrib modules for > > Lucene Java and Lucene Solr. I just need to finish up the paperwork > > over in incubation and then I think we can seek out volunteers on > > the two lists to do the splitting in conjunction with the people > > donating the code.> >> > -Grant> >> > On Aug 25, 2008, at 2:24 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:> >> >>> >> : As to where, from the Solr point of view, a geosearch feature seems> >> : core, thus it should go in Solr core.> >>> >> if i remember correctly,the LocalSolr has been designed/built as a> >> "plugin" so it doesn't actually need to live in the "core" Solr > >> code base> >> ... it can be a Solr contrib ... but i agree it would probably > >> makethe> >> most sense for "Local Lucene" to be a Lucene-Java contrib and > >> "Local Solr"> >> to be a Solr contrib ... haveing a seperate "Geo" subproject might > >> make> >> sense from a code management standpoint, but not really from a> >> dependency/release management or user base standpoint ... either > >> people want to use> >> LocalLucene directly (in which case they don't care about the Solr > >> pieces)> >> or they care about using Local Solr (and don't know they care about > >> the> >> Lucene piece)> >>> >>> >> -Hoss> >>>
_________________________________________________________________
Get all your favourite content with the slick new MSN Toolbar - FREE
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/111354027/direct/01/