With the talk of 6.0 coming out real soon and not waiting for new work,
will this 6.0/5.x issue become moot and morph into an issue for 7.0/6.x?

Settling the criteria for Solr plugin API back-compat still seems urgent,
but if the SOLR-8475 work can quickly get committed to trunk for 6.0 maybe
that takes some of the pressure off. Still, I'd prefer that the back-compat
criteria be settled ASAP.


-- Jack Krupansky

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Yonik Seeley <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:03 AM, Anshum Gupta <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > As I understand, seems like there's reasonable consensus that we will:
> >
> > 1. provide strong back-compat for for SolrJ and REST APIs
> > 2. Strive to maintain but not guarantee *strong* back-compat for Java
> APIs.
>
> I think this actually represents what our current policy already is.
> The sticking point is perhaps "Strive to maintain" is changing
> definition to become much more lenient, to the point of being
> meaningless.
>
> Let's look at the issue that spawned this thread:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8475  (Some refactoring to
> SolrIndexSearcher)
>
> The issue is if QueryCommand and QueryResult should be moved out of
> SolrIndexSearcher in 5.x (essentially a rename), or of that rename
> should only be in 6.0.  If one's desire for a class rename (of classes
> that are likely to be used by plugins) overrides #2, I'd argue that
> means we essentially have no #2 at all.  Or perhaps I'm not grasping
> why it's really that important to rename those classes.
>
> Regarding annotations:
> Multiple people have suggested annotating classes that should remain
> back compat.  If we were to do this, wouldn't we want those
> annotations to cover the classes in question
> (SolrIndexSearcher,QueryCommand,QueryResult)?  If not, what would they
> cover and still be useful?
>
> -Yonik
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
>

Reply via email to