Fix split package org.apache.lucene.search.vectorhighlight #81041
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
To allow for the future modularization of Elasticsearch with Java Modules, there are a number preparatory tasks that need be completed. This is one part of one such task: eliminate split packages.
This PR proposes to move the
CustomFieldQueryclass fromorg.apache.lucene.search.vectorhighlighttoorg.elasticsearch.lucene.search.vectorhighlight, thus avoiding the split package with lucene. It would appear that whenCustomFieldQuerywas originally conceived, it needed package-private access to its superclass,FieldQuery, but this is no longer the case (the superclass now exposes the necessary members publicly).There is a question, raised by a class-level comment in
CustomFieldQuery, about whether this class is still required or not. Since CustomFieldQuery is still used in the code, and the fact that the question is longstanding and orthogonal, it can be addressed as a follow-up, if needed.relates #78166