Make IndexingChain and friends protected?

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

Make IndexingChain and friends protected?

Michael Busch
Hi All,

At Twitter we're using customized IndexingChains and also extend a lot
of abstract classes like e.g. TermsHashConsumer.
Most of these classes are currently package-private, because they were
always considered "expert APIs".

I was wondering if we could switch from package-private to protected in
combination with @lucene.internal? That way extensions and callers of
these APIs would not have to be placed in the o.a.l.index package anymore.

I'd be happy to work on a patch unless there are concerns about this change.

Michael

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Make IndexingChain and friends protected?

Robert Muir
if the change can mostly just expose the indexing chain and related
abstract classe so that its properly pluggable, yet passes our
documentation-lint task without unravelling the whole thing and making
some of the crazier impl stuff public, I think it could be a change
for the better overall.


On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Michael Busch <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> At Twitter we're using customized IndexingChains and also extend a lot of
> abstract classes like e.g. TermsHashConsumer.
> Most of these classes are currently package-private, because they were
> always considered "expert APIs".
>
> I was wondering if we could switch from package-private to protected in
> combination with @lucene.internal? That way extensions and callers of these
> APIs would not have to be placed in the o.a.l.index package anymore.
>
> I'd be happy to work on a patch unless there are concerns about this change.
>
> Michael
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Make IndexingChain and friends protected?

Michael McCandless-2
+1

Mike McCandless

http://blog.mikemccandless.com


On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Robert Muir <[hidden email]> wrote:

> if the change can mostly just expose the indexing chain and related
> abstract classe so that its properly pluggable, yet passes our
> documentation-lint task without unravelling the whole thing and making
> some of the crazier impl stuff public, I think it could be a change
> for the better overall.
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Michael Busch <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> At Twitter we're using customized IndexingChains and also extend a lot of
>> abstract classes like e.g. TermsHashConsumer.
>> Most of these classes are currently package-private, because they were
>> always considered "expert APIs".
>>
>> I was wondering if we could switch from package-private to protected in
>> combination with @lucene.internal? That way extensions and callers of these
>> APIs would not have to be placed in the o.a.l.index package anymore.
>>
>> I'd be happy to work on a patch unless there are concerns about this change.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Make IndexingChain and friends protected?

Michael Busch
Sounds good. I'll work on a patch.

On 3/7/14 1:05 PM, Michael McCandless wrote:

> +1
>
> Mike McCandless
>
> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Robert Muir <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> if the change can mostly just expose the indexing chain and related
>> abstract classe so that its properly pluggable, yet passes our
>> documentation-lint task without unravelling the whole thing and making
>> some of the crazier impl stuff public, I think it could be a change
>> for the better overall.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Michael Busch <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> At Twitter we're using customized IndexingChains and also extend a lot of
>>> abstract classes like e.g. TermsHashConsumer.
>>> Most of these classes are currently package-private, because they were
>>> always considered "expert APIs".
>>>
>>> I was wondering if we could switch from package-private to protected in
>>> combination with @lucene.internal? That way extensions and callers of these
>>> APIs would not have to be placed in the o.a.l.index package anymore.
>>>
>>> I'd be happy to work on a patch unless there are concerns about this change.
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]