Mailing List Archive: Lucene: General

Local Lucene and Local Solr

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

gsingers at apache

Aug 25, 2008, 8:41 AM

Post #1 of 10 (609 views)
Permalink

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

yonik at apache

Aug 25, 2008, 8:59 AM

Post #2 of 10 (579 views)
Permalink

Re: Local Lucene and Local Solr [In reply to]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Grant Ingersoll <gsingers[at]apache.org> 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

lucene at mikemccandless

Aug 25, 2008, 9:19 AM

Post #3 of 10 (582 views)
Permalink

Re: Local Lucene and Local Solr [In reply to]

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
>
>
>
>
>
>

otis_gospodnetic at yahoo

Aug 25, 2008, 10:20 AM

Post #4 of 10 (581 views)
Permalink

Re: Local Lucene and Local Solr [In reply to]

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 <gsingers[at]apache.org>
> To: general[at]lucene.apache.org
> 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

gsingers at apache

Aug 25, 2008, 11:06 AM

Post #5 of 10 (581 views)
Permalink

Re: Local Lucene and Local Solr [In reply to]

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 <gsingers[at]apache.org>
>> To: general[at]lucene.apache.org
>> 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
>

yonik at apache

Aug 25, 2008, 11:18 AM

Post #6 of 10 (582 views)
Permalink

Re: Local Lucene and Local Solr [In reply to]

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

hossman_lucene at fucit

Aug 25, 2008, 11:24 AM

Post #7 of 10 (582 views)
Permalink

Re: Local Lucene and Local Solr [In reply to]

: 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

gsingers at apache

Sep 2, 2008, 9:43 AM

Post #8 of 10 (521 views)
Permalink

Re: Local Lucene and Local Solr [In reply to]

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

gsingers at apache

Sep 15, 2008, 12:11 PM

Post #9 of 10 (443 views)
Permalink

Re: Local Lucene and Local Solr [In reply to]

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
>>

marcusclemens at hotmail

Sep 16, 2008, 8:59 AM

Post #10 of 10 (422 views)
Permalink

RE: Local Lucene and Local Solr [In reply to]

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: gsingers[at]apache.org> To: general[at]lucene.apache.org> 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/

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact lists@gossamer-threads.com