Hi I understand that the name of the maven module needs to be different.
However, I am wondering if the index type name really needs to change? In my opinion it is unfortunate if this implementation detail leaks into the index definitions. Given that we control both oak-lucene implementations, can we not find a way to chose the correct implementation for type=lucene automatically? While this adds some complexity and requires some thought, I think it would help tremendously with adoption. Julian On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 at 09:10, Benjamin Habegger <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello all, > > Currently OAK is using a very old version of lucene (4.7) for it's indices > of type "lucene". There have been different attempts in upgrading lucene to > newer versions but this have not succeeded and with time this has become > more complicated. Recently (see apache#2817 > <https://github.com/apache/jackrabbit-oak/pull/2817>) a new approach to > solving the issue was not to upgrade lucene but rather reimplement a new > type of index directly based on a more recent version of lucene (9+) with > in mind to make the code base easier to upgrade (also noting that since 4.7 > the lucene SPIs have stabilized). > > We've set up a poll here https://github.com/orgs/oak-indexing/discussions/1289 > t <https://github.com/orgs/oak-indexing/discussions/1289>o get your > thoughts on this. > > Best, > Benjamin
