On Tue, 10 Jul 2012, Andi Vajda wrote:

>> I would also like to propose a change, to allow for more flexible
>> mechanism of generating Python class names. The patch doesn't change
>> the default pylucene behaviour, but it gives people a way to replace
>> class names with patterns. I have noticed that there are more
>> same-name classes from different packages in the new lucene (and it
>> becomes worse when one has to deal with both lucene and solr).
>
> Another way to fix this is to reproduce the namespace hierarchy used in
> Lucene, following along the Java packages, something I've been dreading to
> do. Lucene just loooooves a really long deeply nested class structure.
> I'm not convinced yet it is bad enough to go down that route, though.
>
> Your proposal to use patterns may in fact yield a much more convenient
> solution. Thanks !

Rethinking this a bit, I'm prepared to change my mind on this. Your
patterned rename patch shows that we're slowly but surely reaching the limit
of the current setup that consists in throwing all wrapped classes under the
one global 'lucene' namespace.

Lucene 4.0 has seen a large number of deeply nested classes with similar
names added since 3.x. Renaming these one by one (or excluding some) doesn't
scale. Using the proposed patterned rename scales more but makes it
difficult to know what got renamed and how.
Ultimately, the more classes that are like-named, the more classes would
have instable names from one release to the next as more duplicated names
are encountered.

What if instead JCC supported the original Java namespaces all the way to
the Python inteface (still dropping the original 'org.apache' Java package
tree prefix) ?
The world-rooted style of naming Java classes isn't Pythonic but using the
second half of the package structure feels right at home in the Python
world.

JCC already re-creates the complete Java package structure in C++ as
namespaces for all the C++ code it generates, for both the JNI wrapper
classes and the C++/Python types. It's only the installation of the class
names into the Python VM that is done in the flat 'lucene' namespace.

I think it shouldn't be too hard to change the code that installs classes to
create sub-modules of the lucene module and install classes in these
submodules instead (down to however many levels are in the original).

In other words:
   - from lucene import Document
would become
   - from lucene.document import Document

One could of course also say:
   - import lucene.document.Document as whateverOneLikes

If that proposal isn't mortally flawed somewhere, I'm prepared to drop
support for --rename and replace it with this new Python class/module
layout.

Since this is being talked about in the context of a major PyLucene release,
version 4.0, and that all tests/samples have to be reworked anyway, this
backwards compat break shouldn't be too controversial, hopefully.

If it is, the old --rename could be preserved for sure, but I'd prefer
simplying the JCC interface than to accrete more to it.

What do you think ?

Andi..

>
> Andi..
>
>>
>> I can confirm the test_test_BinaryDocument.py crashes the JVM no more.
>>
>> Roman
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Andi Vajda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Hi Roman,
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2012, Roman Chyla wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks, I am attaching a new patch that adds the missing test base.
>>>> Sorry for the tabs, I was probably messing around with a few editors
>>>> (some of them not configured properly)
>>>
>>>
>>> I integrated your test class (renaming it to fit the naming scheme used).
>>> Thanks !
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>> So far, found one serious problem, crashes VM -- see. eg
>>>>>>>> test/test_BinaryDocument.py - when getting the document using:
>>>>>>>> reader.document(0)
>>>
>>>
>>> test/test_BInaryDocument.py doesn't seem to crash the VM but fails because
>>> of some API changes. I suspect the crash to be some issue related to using
>>> an older jcc.

Hi Andi,

I think this would be great. Let me add little bit more to your
observations (whole night yesterday was spent fighting with renames -
because I was building a project which imports shared lucene and solr  --
there were thousands of same classes, I am not sure it would be possible
without some sort of a flexible rename...)

JCC is a great tool and is used by potentially many projects - so stripping
"org.apache" seems right for pylucene, but looks arbitrary otherwise
(unless there is a flexible stripping mechanism). Also, if the full
namespace remains original, then the code written in Python would be also
executable by Jython, which is IMHO an advantage.

But this being Python, the packages cannot be spread in different locations
(ie. there can be only one org.apache.lucene.analysis package) - unless
there exists (again) some flexible mechanism which populates the namespace
with objects that belong there. It may seem an overkill to you, because for
single projects it would work, but seems perfectly justifiable in case of
imported shared libraries

I don't know what is your idea for implementing the python packages, but
your last email got me thinking as well - there might be a very simple way
of getting to the java packages inside Python without too much work.

Let's say the java "org.apache.lucene.search.IndexSearcher" is known to
python as org_apache_lucene_search_IndexSearcher

and users do:

import lucene
lucene.initVM()

initVM() first initiates java VM (and populates the lucene namespace with
all objects), but then it will call jcc.register_module(self)

A new piece of code inside JCC grabs the lucene module and creates (on the
fly) python packages -- using types.ModuleType (or new.module()) -- the new
packages will be inserted into sys.modules

so after lucene.initVM() returns

users can do "from org.apache.lucene.search import IndexSearcher" and get
lucene.org_apache_lucene_search_IndexSearcher object

and also, when shared libraries are present (let's say 'solr') users do:

import solr
solr.initVM()

The JCC will just update the existing packages and create new ones if
needed (and from this perspective, having fully qualified name is safer
than to have lucene.search.IndexSearcher)

I think this change is totally possible and will not change the way how
extensions are built. Does it have some serious flaw?

I would be of course more than happy to contribute and test.

Best,

  roman
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Andi Vajda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012, Andi Vajda wrote:
>
>  I would also like to propose a change, to allow for more flexible
>>> mechanism of generating Python class names. The patch doesn't change
>>> the default pylucene behaviour, but it gives people a way to replace
>>> class names with patterns. I have noticed that there are more
>>> same-name classes from different packages in the new lucene (and it
>>> becomes worse when one has to deal with both lucene and solr).
>>>
>>
>> Another way to fix this is to reproduce the namespace hierarchy used in
>> Lucene, following along the Java packages, something I've been dreading to
>> do. Lucene just loooooves a really long deeply nested class structure.
>> I'm not convinced yet it is bad enough to go down that route, though.
>>
>> Your proposal to use patterns may in fact yield a much more convenient
>> solution. Thanks !
>>
>
> Rethinking this a bit, I'm prepared to change my mind on this. Your
> patterned rename patch shows that we're slowly but surely reaching the
> limit of the current setup that consists in throwing all wrapped classes
> under the one global 'lucene' namespace.
>
> Lucene 4.0 has seen a large number of deeply nested classes with similar
> names added since 3.x. Renaming these one by one (or excluding some)
> doesn't scale. Using the proposed patterned rename scales more but makes it
> difficult to know what got renamed and how.
> Ultimately, the more classes that are like-named, the more classes would

On Jul 13, 2012, at 18:33, Roman Chyla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I think this would be great. Let me add little bit more to your
> observations (whole night yesterday was spent fighting with renames -
> because I was building a project which imports shared lucene and solr  --
> there were thousands of same classes, I am not sure it would be possible
> without some sort of a flexible rename...)
>
> JCC is a great tool and is used by potentially many projects - so stripping
> "org.apache" seems right for pylucene, but looks arbitrary otherwise

Yes, I forgot to say that there would be a way to declare one or more mappings  so that org.apache.lucene becomes lucene.

Andi..

> (unless there is a flexible stripping mechanism). Also, if the full
> namespace remains original, then the code written in Python would be also
> executable by Jython, which is IMHO an advantage.
>
> But this being Python, the packages cannot be spread in different locations
> (ie. there can be only one org.apache.lucene.analysis package) - unless
> there exists (again) some flexible mechanism which populates the namespace
> with objects that belong there. It may seem an overkill to you, because for
> single projects it would work, but seems perfectly justifiable in case of
> imported shared libraries
>
> I don't know what is your idea for implementing the python packages, but
> your last email got me thinking as well - there might be a very simple way
> of getting to the java packages inside Python without too much work.
>
> Let's say the java "org.apache.lucene.search.IndexSearcher" is known to
> python as org_apache_lucene_search_IndexSearcher
>
> and users do:
>
> import lucene
> lucene.initVM()
>
> initVM() first initiates java VM (and populates the lucene namespace with
> all objects), but then it will call jcc.register_module(self)
>
> A new piece of code inside JCC grabs the lucene module and creates (on the
> fly) python packages -- using types.ModuleType (or new.module()) -- the new
> packages will be inserted into sys.modules
>
> so after lucene.initVM() returns
>
> users can do "from org.apache.lucene.search import IndexSearcher" and get
> lucene.org_apache_lucene_search_IndexSearcher object
>
> and also, when shared libraries are present (let's say 'solr') users do:
>
> import solr
> solr.initVM()
>
> The JCC will just update the existing packages and create new ones if
> needed (and from this perspective, having fully qualified name is safer
> than to have lucene.search.IndexSearcher)
>
> I think this change is totally possible and will not change the way how
> extensions are built. Does it have some serious flaw?
>
> I would be of course more than happy to contribute and test.
>
> Best,
>
>  roman
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Andi Vajda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012, Andi Vajda wrote:
>>
>> I would also like to propose a change, to allow for more flexible
>>>> mechanism of generating Python class names. The patch doesn't change
>>>> the default pylucene behaviour, but it gives people a way to replace
>>>> class names with patterns. I have noticed that there are more
>>>> same-name classes from different packages in the new lucene (and it
>>>> becomes worse when one has to deal with both lucene and solr).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Another way to fix this is to reproduce the namespace hierarchy used in
>>> Lucene, following along the Java packages, something I've been dreading to
>>> do. Lucene just loooooves a really long deeply nested class structure.
>>> I'm not convinced yet it is bad enough to go down that route, though.
>>>
>>> Your proposal to use patterns may in fact yield a much more convenient
>>> solution. Thanks !
>>>
>>
>> Rethinking this a bit, I'm prepared to change my mind on this. Your
>> patterned rename patch shows that we're slowly but surely reaching the
>> limit of the current setup that consists in throwing all wrapped classes
>> under the one global 'lucene' namespace.

Just chiming in that my use of JCC to wrap the Eclipse BIRT Runtime
Engine could really use this ability.  There are a TON of classes that
should be wrapped, and many use the same set of names, but in different
packages.

Pat

On 07/13/2012 07:34 AM, Andi Vajda wrote:
> On Jul 13, 2012, at 18:33, Roman Chyla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I think this would be great. Let me add little bit more to your
>> observations (whole night yesterday was spent fighting with renames -
>> because I was building a project which imports shared lucene and solr  --
>> there were thousands of same classes, I am not sure it would be possible
>> without some sort of a flexible rename...)
>>
>> JCC is a great tool and is used by potentially many projects - so stripping
>> "org.apache" seems right for pylucene, but looks arbitrary otherwise
> Yes, I forgot to say that there would be a way to declare one or more mappings  so that org.apache.lucene becomes lucene.
>
> Andi..
>
>> (unless there is a flexible stripping mechanism). Also, if the full
>> namespace remains original, then the code written in Python would be also
>> executable by Jython, which is IMHO an advantage.
>>
>> But this being Python, the packages cannot be spread in different locations
>> (ie. there can be only one org.apache.lucene.analysis package) - unless
>> there exists (again) some flexible mechanism which populates the namespace
>> with objects that belong there. It may seem an overkill to you, because for
>> single projects it would work, but seems perfectly justifiable in case of
>> imported shared libraries
>>
>> I don't know what is your idea for implementing the python packages, but
>> your last email got me thinking as well - there might be a very simple way
>> of getting to the java packages inside Python without too much work.
>>
>> Let's say the java "org.apache.lucene.search.IndexSearcher" is known to
>> python as org_apache_lucene_search_IndexSearcher
>>
>> and users do:
>>
>> import lucene
>> lucene.initVM()
>>
>> initVM() first initiates java VM (and populates the lucene namespace with
>> all objects), but then it will call jcc.register_module(self)
>>
>> A new piece of code inside JCC grabs the lucene module and creates (on the
>> fly) python packages -- using types.ModuleType (or new.module()) -- the new
>> packages will be inserted into sys.modules
>>
>> so after lucene.initVM() returns
>>
>> users can do "from org.apache.lucene.search import IndexSearcher" and get
>> lucene.org_apache_lucene_search_IndexSearcher object
>>
>> and also, when shared libraries are present (let's say 'solr') users do:
>>
>> import solr
>> solr.initVM()
>>
>> The JCC will just update the existing packages and create new ones if
>> needed (and from this perspective, having fully qualified name is safer
>> than to have lucene.search.IndexSearcher)
>>
>> I think this change is totally possible and will not change the way how
>> extensions are built. Does it have some serious flaw?
>>
>> I would be of course more than happy to contribute and test.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>   roman
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Andi Vajda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012, Andi Vajda wrote:
>>>
>>> I would also like to propose a change, to allow for more flexible
>>>>> mechanism of generating Python class names. The patch doesn't change
>>>>> the default pylucene behaviour, but it gives people a way to replace
>>>>> class names with patterns. I have noticed that there are more
>>>>> same-name classes from different packages in the new lucene (and it
>>>>> becomes worse when one has to deal with both lucene and solr).
>>>>>
>>>> Another way to fix this is to reproduce the namespace hierarchy used in
>>>> Lucene, following along the Java packages, something I've been dreading to
>>>> do. Lucene just loooooves a really long deeply nested class structure.
>>>> I'm not convinced yet it is bad enough to go down that route, though.
>>>>
>>>> Your proposal to use patterns may in fact yield a much more convenient
Patrick J. McNerthney
Chief Architect
nCircle, Inc.
+1 808 268 2821 (office)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Join, Participate & Connect
/It's the security conference that never ends/
http://connect.ncircle.com

Hi,
I was playing with the idea of creating virtual packages, attached is a
working script that illustrates it. I am getting this output:

Dit it work?
=================from org.apache.lucene.search import SearcherFactory; print SearcherFactory
<type 'SearcherFactory'>
from org.apache.lucene.analysis import Analyzer as Banalyzer; print
Banalyzer
<type 'Analyzer'>
print sys.modules['org'] <module 'org' (built-in)>
print sys.modules['org.apache'] <module 'org.apache' (built-in)>
print sys.modules['org.apache.lucene'] <module 'org.apache.lucene'
(built-in)>
print sys.modules['org.apache.lucene.search'] <module
'org.apache.lucene.search' (built-in)>

Cheers,

  roman
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Andi Vajda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> On Jul 13, 2012, at 18:33, Roman Chyla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I think this would be great. Let me add little bit more to your
> > observations (whole night yesterday was spent fighting with renames -
> > because I was building a project which imports shared lucene and solr  --
> > there were thousands of same classes, I am not sure it would be possible
> > without some sort of a flexible rename...)
> >
> > JCC is a great tool and is used by potentially many projects - so
> stripping
> > "org.apache" seems right for pylucene, but looks arbitrary otherwise
>
> Yes, I forgot to say that there would be a way to declare one or more
> mappings  so that org.apache.lucene becomes lucene.
>
> Andi..
>
> > (unless there is a flexible stripping mechanism). Also, if the full
> > namespace remains original, then the code written in Python would be also
> > executable by Jython, which is IMHO an advantage.
> >
> > But this being Python, the packages cannot be spread in different
> locations
> > (ie. there can be only one org.apache.lucene.analysis package) - unless
> > there exists (again) some flexible mechanism which populates the
> namespace
> > with objects that belong there. It may seem an overkill to you, because
> for
> > single projects it would work, but seems perfectly justifiable in case of
> > imported shared libraries
> >
> > I don't know what is your idea for implementing the python packages, but
> > your last email got me thinking as well - there might be a very simple
> way
> > of getting to the java packages inside Python without too much work.
> >
> > Let's say the java "org.apache.lucene.search.IndexSearcher" is known to
> > python as org_apache_lucene_search_IndexSearcher
> >
> > and users do:
> >
> > import lucene
> > lucene.initVM()
> >
> > initVM() first initiates java VM (and populates the lucene namespace with
> > all objects), but then it will call jcc.register_module(self)
> >
> > A new piece of code inside JCC grabs the lucene module and creates (on
> the
> > fly) python packages -- using types.ModuleType (or new.module()) -- the
> new
> > packages will be inserted into sys.modules
> >
> > so after lucene.initVM() returns
> >
> > users can do "from org.apache.lucene.search import IndexSearcher" and get
> > lucene.org_apache_lucene_search_IndexSearcher object
> >
> > and also, when shared libraries are present (let's say 'solr') users do:
> >
> > import solr
> > solr.initVM()
> >
> > The JCC will just update the existing packages and create new ones if
> > needed (and from this perspective, having fully qualified name is safer
> > than to have lucene.search.IndexSearcher)
> >
> > I think this change is totally possible and will not change the way how
> > extensions are built. Does it have some serious flaw?
> >
> > I would be of course more than happy to contribute and test.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> >  roman
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Andi Vajda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012, Andi Vajda wrote:
> >>
> >> I would also like to propose a change, to allow for more flexible
> >>>> mechanism of generating Python class names. The patch doesn't change
> >>>> the default pylucene behaviour, but it gives people a way to replace
> >>>

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012, Roman Chyla wrote:

> Hi,
> I was playing with the idea of creating virtual packages, attached is a
> working script that illustrates it. I am getting this output:
>
> Dit it work?

No, I haven't forgotten, I'm just on vacation.

Andi..

> =================> from org.apache.lucene.search import SearcherFactory; print SearcherFactory
> <type 'SearcherFactory'>
> from org.apache.lucene.analysis import Analyzer as Banalyzer; print
> Banalyzer
> <type 'Analyzer'>
> print sys.modules['org'] <module 'org' (built-in)>
> print sys.modules['org.apache'] <module 'org.apache' (built-in)>
> print sys.modules['org.apache.lucene'] <module 'org.apache.lucene'
> (built-in)>
> print sys.modules['org.apache.lucene.search'] <module
> 'org.apache.lucene.search' (built-in)>
>
> Cheers,
>
>  roman
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Andi Vajda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 13, 2012, at 18:33, Roman Chyla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> I think this would be great. Let me add little bit more to your
>>> observations (whole night yesterday was spent fighting with renames -
>>> because I was building a project which imports shared lucene and solr  --
>>> there were thousands of same classes, I am not sure it would be possible
>>> without some sort of a flexible rename...)
>>>
>>> JCC is a great tool and is used by potentially many projects - so
>> stripping
>>> "org.apache" seems right for pylucene, but looks arbitrary otherwise
>>
>> Yes, I forgot to say that there would be a way to declare one or more
>> mappings  so that org.apache.lucene becomes lucene.
>>
>> Andi..
>>
>>> (unless there is a flexible stripping mechanism). Also, if the full
>>> namespace remains original, then the code written in Python would be also
>>> executable by Jython, which is IMHO an advantage.
>>>
>>> But this being Python, the packages cannot be spread in different
>> locations
>>> (ie. there can be only one org.apache.lucene.analysis package) - unless
>>> there exists (again) some flexible mechanism which populates the
>> namespace
>>> with objects that belong there. It may seem an overkill to you, because
>> for
>>> single projects it would work, but seems perfectly justifiable in case of
>>> imported shared libraries
>>>
>>> I don't know what is your idea for implementing the python packages, but
>>> your last email got me thinking as well - there might be a very simple
>> way
>>> of getting to the java packages inside Python without too much work.
>>>
>>> Let's say the java "org.apache.lucene.search.IndexSearcher" is known to
>>> python as org_apache_lucene_search_IndexSearcher
>>>
>>> and users do:
>>>
>>> import lucene
>>> lucene.initVM()
>>>
>>> initVM() first initiates java VM (and populates the lucene namespace with
>>> all objects), but then it will call jcc.register_module(self)
>>>
>>> A new piece of code inside JCC grabs the lucene module and creates (on
>> the
>>> fly) python packages -- using types.ModuleType (or new.module()) -- the
>> new
>>> packages will be inserted into sys.modules
>>>
>>> so after lucene.initVM() returns
>>>
>>> users can do "from org.apache.lucene.search import IndexSearcher" and get
>>> lucene.org_apache_lucene_search_IndexSearcher object
>>>
>>> and also, when shared libraries are present (let's say 'solr') users do:
>>>
>>> import solr
>>> solr.initVM()
>>>
>>> The JCC will just update the existing packages and create new ones if
>>> needed (and from this perspective, having fully qualified name is safer
>>> than to have lucene.search.IndexSearcher)
>>>
>>> I think this change is totally possible and will not change the way how
>>> extensions are built. Does it have some serious flaw?
>>>
>>> I would be of course more than happy to contribute and test.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>>  roman
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Andi Vajda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012, Andi Vajda wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I would also like to propose a change, to allow for more flexible

The script must have thought about it somehow :-) Have a great,
undisturbed vacation!

roman

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Andi Vajda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012, Roman Chyla wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> I was playing with the idea of creating virtual packages, attached is a
>> working script that illustrates it. I am getting this output:
>>
>> Dit it work?
>
>
> No, I haven't forgotten, I'm just on vacation.
>
> Andi..
>
>
>> =================>> from org.apache.lucene.search import SearcherFactory; print
>> SearcherFactory
>> <type 'SearcherFactory'>
>> from org.apache.lucene.analysis import Analyzer as Banalyzer; print
>> Banalyzer
>> <type 'Analyzer'>
>> print sys.modules['org'] <module 'org' (built-in)>
>> print sys.modules['org.apache'] <module 'org.apache' (built-in)>
>> print sys.modules['org.apache.lucene'] <module 'org.apache.lucene'
>> (built-in)>
>> print sys.modules['org.apache.lucene.search'] <module
>> 'org.apache.lucene.search' (built-in)>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>  roman
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Andi Vajda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 13, 2012, at 18:33, Roman Chyla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think this would be great. Let me add little bit more to your
>>>> observations (whole night yesterday was spent fighting with renames -
>>>> because I was building a project which imports shared lucene and solr
>>>> --
>>>> there were thousands of same classes, I am not sure it would be possible
>>>> without some sort of a flexible rename...)
>>>>
>>>> JCC is a great tool and is used by potentially many projects - so
>>>
>>> stripping
>>>>
>>>> "org.apache" seems right for pylucene, but looks arbitrary otherwise
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I forgot to say that there would be a way to declare one or more
>>> mappings  so that org.apache.lucene becomes lucene.
>>>
>>> Andi..
>>>
>>>> (unless there is a flexible stripping mechanism). Also, if the full
>>>> namespace remains original, then the code written in Python would be
>>>> also
>>>> executable by Jython, which is IMHO an advantage.
>>>>
>>>> But this being Python, the packages cannot be spread in different
>>>
>>> locations
>>>>
>>>> (ie. there can be only one org.apache.lucene.analysis package) - unless
>>>> there exists (again) some flexible mechanism which populates the
>>>
>>> namespace
>>>>
>>>> with objects that belong there. It may seem an overkill to you, because
>>>
>>> for
>>>>
>>>> single projects it would work, but seems perfectly justifiable in case
>>>> of
>>>> imported shared libraries
>>>>
>>>> I don't know what is your idea for implementing the python packages, but
>>>> your last email got me thinking as well - there might be a very simple
>>>
>>> way
>>>>
>>>> of getting to the java packages inside Python without too much work.
>>>>
>>>> Let's say the java "org.apache.lucene.search.IndexSearcher" is known to
>>>> python as org_apache_lucene_search_IndexSearcher
>>>>
>>>> and users do:
>>>>
>>>> import lucene
>>>> lucene.initVM()
>>>>
>>>> initVM() first initiates java VM (and populates the lucene namespace
>>>> with
>>>> all objects), but then it will call jcc.register_module(self)
>>>>
>>>> A new piece of code inside JCC grabs the lucene module and creates (on
>>>
>>> the
>>>>
>>>> fly) python packages -- using types.ModuleType (or new.module()) -- the
>>>
>>> new
>>>>
>>>> packages will be inserted into sys.modules
>>>>
>>>> so after lucene.initVM() returns
>>>>
>>>> users can do "from org.apache.lucene.search import IndexSearcher" and
>>>> get
>>>> lucene.org_apache_lucene_search_IndexSearcher object
>>>>
>>>> and also, when shared libraries are present (let's say 'solr') users do:
>>>>
>>>> import solr
>>>> solr.initVM()
>>>>
>>>> The JCC will just update the existing packages and create new ones if
>>>> needed (and from this perspective, having fully qualified name is safer
>>>> than to have lucene.search.IndexSearcher)
>>>>
>>>> I think this change is totally possible and will not change the way how

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012, Roman Chyla wrote:

> The script must have thought about it somehow :-) Have a great,
> undisturbed vacation!

In rev 1363436 of jcc, I implemented support for the simplest version of the
proposal via a new command line flag, off by default, called
--use_full_names.
When --use_full_names is used, the wrapped classes get installed into a
Python module hierarchy that parallels the Java one.

For example:

   >>> import lucene
   >>> lucene.initVM()
   <jcc.JCCEnv object at 0x10029c0f0>
   >>> from org.apache.lucene.document import Document
   >>> Document()
   <Document: Document<>>
   >>>

Andi..

>
> roman
>
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Andi Vajda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012, Roman Chyla wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> I was playing with the idea of creating virtual packages, attached is a
>>> working script that illustrates it. I am getting this output:
>>>
>>> Dit it work?
>>
>>
>> No, I haven't forgotten, I'm just on vacation.
>>
>> Andi..
>>
>>
>>> =================>>> from org.apache.lucene.search import SearcherFactory; print
>>> SearcherFactory
>>> <type 'SearcherFactory'>
>>> from org.apache.lucene.analysis import Analyzer as Banalyzer; print
>>> Banalyzer
>>> <type 'Analyzer'>
>>> print sys.modules['org'] <module 'org' (built-in)>
>>> print sys.modules['org.apache'] <module 'org.apache' (built-in)>
>>> print sys.modules['org.apache.lucene'] <module 'org.apache.lucene'
>>> (built-in)>
>>> print sys.modules['org.apache.lucene.search'] <module
>>> 'org.apache.lucene.search' (built-in)>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>>  roman
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Andi Vajda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 13, 2012, at 18:33, Roman Chyla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think this would be great. Let me add little bit more to your
>>>>> observations (whole night yesterday was spent fighting with renames -
>>>>> because I was building a project which imports shared lucene and solr
>>>>> --
>>>>> there were thousands of same classes, I am not sure it would be possible
>>>>> without some sort of a flexible rename...)
>>>>>
>>>>> JCC is a great tool and is used by potentially many projects - so
>>>>
>>>> stripping
>>>>>
>>>>> "org.apache" seems right for pylucene, but looks arbitrary otherwise
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I forgot to say that there would be a way to declare one or more
>>>> mappings  so that org.apache.lucene becomes lucene.
>>>>
>>>> Andi..
>>>>
>>>>> (unless there is a flexible stripping mechanism). Also, if the full
>>>>> namespace remains original, then the code written in Python would be
>>>>> also
>>>>> executable by Jython, which is IMHO an advantage.
>>>>>
>>>>> But this being Python, the packages cannot be spread in different
>>>>
>>>> locations
>>>>>
>>>>> (ie. there can be only one org.apache.lucene.analysis package) - unless
>>>>> there exists (again) some flexible mechanism which populates the
>>>>
>>>> namespace
>>>>>
>>>>> with objects that belong there. It may seem an overkill to you, because
>>>>
>>>> for
>>>>>
>>>>> single projects it would work, but seems perfectly justifiable in case
>>>>> of
>>>>> imported shared libraries
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know what is your idea for implementing the python packages, but
>>>>> your last email got me thinking as well - there might be a very simple
>>>>
>>>> way
>>>>>
>>>>> of getting to the java packages inside Python without too much work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's say the java "org.apache.lucene.search.IndexSearcher" is known to
>>>>> python as org_apache_lucene_search_IndexSearcher
>>>>>
>>>>> and users do:
>>>>>
>>>>> import lucene
>>>>> lucene.initVM()
>>>>>
>>>>> initVM() first initiates java VM (and populates the lucene namespace
>>>>> with
>>>>> all objects), but then it will call jcc.register_module(self)
>>>>>
>>>>> A new piece of code inside JCC grabs the lucene module and creates (on
>>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>> fly) python packages -- using types.ModuleType (or new.module()) -- the
>>>>
>>>> new

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..

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..
>

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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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..
>>

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
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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..
>>>
>

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Roman Chyla wrote:

> 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!

Cool, so the PyLucene 4.0 build is now using --use_full_names !
The long test and sample rewrite has begun....

Currently, only test/test_Analyzers.py passes. All other test and samples
remain to be ported to the new API and their imports fixed to fit the new
generated Python module tree that follows the Lucene java package tree.

Volunteers to help with this would be appreciated !

If you're stumped by a Lucene API change, check the detailed CHANGES.txt and
even more detailed MIGRATE.txt files for examples and instructions on how to
port to the new Lucene 4.0 API.

http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branches/branch_4x/lucene/CHANGES.txt
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branches/branch_4x/lucene/MIGRATE.txt

If you have questions about how to express some of these things with
Python and JCC, please don't hesitate to ask here.

To avoid having multiple people working on the same files at the same time,
please send a brief message to the list that you're taking on a particular
test or directory of tests/samples.

Andi..