Lucene - Core
  1. Lucene - Core
  2. LUCENE-2981

Review and potentially remove unused/unsupported Contribs

    Details

    • Type: Improvement Improvement
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: Major Major
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Affects Version/s: None
    • Fix Version/s: 3.2, 4.0-ALPHA
    • Component/s: None
    • Labels:
      None
    • Lucene Fields:
      New

      Description

      Some of our contribs appear to be lacking for development/support or are missing tests. We should review whether they are even pertinent these days and potentially deprecate and remove them.

      One of the things we did in Mahout when bringing in Colt code was to mark all code that didn't have tests as @deprecated and then we removed the deprecation once tests were added. Those that didn't get tests added over about a 6 mos. period of time were removed.

      I would suggest taking a hard look at:
      ant
      db
      lucli
      swing

      (spatial should be gutted to some extent and moved to modules)

      1. LUCENE-2981.patch
        275 kB
        Robert Muir

        Activity

        Hide
        Robert Muir added a comment -

        patch file implementing grant's suggestions.

        Show
        Robert Muir added a comment - patch file implementing grant's suggestions.
        Hide
        Ryan McKinley added a comment -

        +1 for 4.0
        -0 for 3.2

        Show
        Ryan McKinley added a comment - +1 for 4.0 -0 for 3.2
        Hide
        Grant Ingersoll added a comment -

        +1 for 4.0

        I'm fine w/ 3.2, too, FWIW. I can't remember the last time someone submitted a patch or even reported a bug on any of these or even asked about them on user@.

        Show
        Grant Ingersoll added a comment - +1 for 4.0 I'm fine w/ 3.2, too, FWIW. I can't remember the last time someone submitted a patch or even reported a bug on any of these or even asked about them on user@.
        Hide
        Steve Rowe added a comment -

        +1 for 3.2

        Show
        Steve Rowe added a comment - +1 for 3.2
        Hide
        Andi Vajda added a comment -

        Unless there are users, I'm +1 for removing db anytime.
        Last time I fixed something there was for the Java version of db, a contribution by someone else I haven't heard of in years.
        I haven't heard from any users with questions or bug reports in a long time either.

        Show
        Andi Vajda added a comment - Unless there are users, I'm +1 for removing db anytime. Last time I fixed something there was for the Java version of db, a contribution by someone else I haven't heard of in years. I haven't heard from any users with questions or bug reports in a long time either.
        Hide
        Earwin Burrfoot added a comment -

        Bye-bye, DB. Few things can compete with it in pointlessness.

        Show
        Earwin Burrfoot added a comment - Bye-bye, DB. Few things can compete with it in pointlessness.
        Hide
        Steve Rowe added a comment -

        FYI, LEGAL-82 includes mention of Lucene's dependency on a Berkeley DB lib; on that issue, Sam Ruby says, in answer to the question of the legitimacy of dependency on BDB (along with other "Category X" works): "the short answer is no".

        Show
        Steve Rowe added a comment - FYI, LEGAL-82 includes mention of Lucene's dependency on a Berkeley DB lib; on that issue, Sam Ruby says, in answer to the question of the legitimacy of dependency on BDB (along with other "Category X" works): "the short answer is no".
        Hide
        Robert Muir added a comment -

        The reason i havent committed the patch is because there doesn't seem to yet be consensus on what to do for 3.2

        Show
        Robert Muir added a comment - The reason i havent committed the patch is because there doesn't seem to yet be consensus on what to do for 3.2
        Hide
        Uwe Schindler added a comment -

        +1 for 3.1

        oh I forgot to mention: die, die, die

        Show
        Uwe Schindler added a comment - +1 for 3.1 oh I forgot to mention: die, die, die
        Hide
        Steve Rowe added a comment -

        The reason i havent committed the patch is because there doesn't seem to yet be consensus on what to do for 3.2

        RE: 3.2, there are several +1s, and no -1s; Ryan's vote was -0. That looks to me like lazy consensus?

        Show
        Steve Rowe added a comment - The reason i havent committed the patch is because there doesn't seem to yet be consensus on what to do for 3.2 RE: 3.2, there are several +1s, and no -1s; Ryan's vote was -0. That looks to me like lazy consensus?
        Hide
        Mark Miller added a comment -

        +1 to slash and burn.

        Show
        Mark Miller added a comment - +1 to slash and burn.
        Hide
        Steve Rowe added a comment -

        FYI, LEGAL-82 includes mention of Lucene's dependency on a Berkeley DB lib; on that issue, Sam Ruby says, in answer to the question of the legitimacy of dependency on BDB (along with other "Category X" works): "the short answer is no".

        Hmm, as recorded in LUCENE-1845, Simon Willnauer asked on legal-discuss@a.o specifically about Lucene's use of a BDB dependency, and Niclas Hedhman's response was actually in support of including the BDB jar as an optional dependency, "provided it is not shipped with the release and that the user is provided with the information that the BDB needs to be downloaded separately and advised to review their license."

        So: the DB contribs' BDB dependencies do not constitute grounds for slashing and burning them; other considerations, however, provide sufficient support for this, IMHO.

        Show
        Steve Rowe added a comment - FYI, LEGAL-82 includes mention of Lucene's dependency on a Berkeley DB lib; on that issue, Sam Ruby says, in answer to the question of the legitimacy of dependency on BDB (along with other "Category X" works): "the short answer is no". Hmm, as recorded in LUCENE-1845 , Simon Willnauer asked on legal-discuss@a.o specifically about Lucene's use of a BDB dependency, and Niclas Hedhman's response was actually in support of including the BDB jar as an optional dependency, "provided it is not shipped with the release and that the user is provided with the information that the BDB needs to be downloaded separately and advised to review their license." So: the DB contribs' BDB dependencies do not constitute grounds for slashing and burning them; other considerations, however, provide sufficient support for this, IMHO.
        Hide
        Simon Willnauer added a comment -

        +1 to slash and burn.

        +1 go for it!

        Show
        Simon Willnauer added a comment - +1 to slash and burn. +1 go for it!
        Hide
        Robert Muir added a comment -

        ok there does seem to be some consensus now, thanks guys.

        Ryan, can you elaborate on your concerns (reason for your -0)? Maybe there is something we can do to address them.

        Show
        Robert Muir added a comment - ok there does seem to be some consensus now, thanks guys. Ryan, can you elaborate on your concerns (reason for your -0)? Maybe there is something we can do to address them.
        Hide
        Robert Muir added a comment -

        Committed revision 1126280.

        Committed revision 1126281.

        Show
        Robert Muir added a comment - Committed revision 1126280. Committed revision 1126281.
        Hide
        Robert Muir added a comment -

        Bulk closing for 3.2

        Show
        Robert Muir added a comment - Bulk closing for 3.2

          People

          • Assignee:
            Robert Muir
            Reporter:
            Grant Ingersoll
          • Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            0 Start watching this issue

            Dates

            • Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved:

              Development