The full names make things easier and I would also think that the top level 'java' package should be optional.
Many thanks from me too! roman On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Petrus Hyvönen <petrus.hyvo...@gmail.com> wrote: > No objections, my build parameter list got significantly more readable using > the full names and managing without the renames. I think it also makes it > easier for entry level users to use the jcc wrapper as one doesn't have to > track down the duplicate names. > > Regarding the addition of a top level 'java' package, I would prefer it to > be optional, so that it is possible to get close to the java examples for the > wrapped library. > > Many thanks for the work, > /Petrus > > > On 15 aug 2012, at 11:52, Andi Vajda <va...@apache.org> wrote: > >> >> If there are no objections to the new module layout for Python wrappers >> around Java classes that follows the Java package structure, I'd like to >> switch the PyLucene 4.0 build to --use_full_names by default. >> >> It makes from longer import statements but eliminates all --rename and >> --exclude uses from the current PyLucene jcc command line. >> >> Any objections, comments, suggestions ? >> >> Andi.. >> >> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012, Andi Vajda wrote: >> >>> >>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Roman Chyla wrote: >>> >>>> I am now using the --use_full_names and it works without greater >>>> problems, even against the latest lucene trunk >>>> The only nuisance is that modules defined in java take over modules >>>> defined in python (I happened to have one name which was the same for >>>> both, so I renamed the java package) >>> >>> Maybe a top level 'java' package should be added to all the packages created >>> when --use_full_names is used ? >>> Thus >>> >>> from org.apache.lucene.document import Document >>> would become >>> >>> from java.org.apache.lucene.document import Document >>> >>> It's even more typing but a little less intrusive on existing package >>> names ? >>> >>> Andi.. >>> >
