lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Frank Nestel <>
Subject Re: feature suggestion
Date Sat, 13 Oct 2001 10:29:07 GMT
Yes, I would prefer to have native Object support. It's
not that I do not know how to wrap arround that, it is
just that I thought this would be a nice and lean extension of
the Lucene API without loosing the primary focus of Lucene.

To make this really lean in terms of generated index size
I guess it would be better to have those serialized Objects
stored as byte[] rather than String?

Dmitry Serebrennikov schrieb:
> Frank Nestel wrote:
> >[...]
> >
> >
> >For a short moment I considered marshalling this extra info into XML or
> >at least text. But this means an considerable overhead and another
> >developers inconvenience. It should be possible to have a different kind
> >of Field which holds a Serializable Object just stored, untokenized and
> >unindexed just for retrieval together with other document data.
> >Probably there might be other applications where even unstored Fields
> >of that kind would make sense, but tokenizing should be impossible. And
> >I do not want to dream here about what one could do if indexing was
> >possible.
> >
> What's preventing you from doing this now? I think you could declare a
> stored / untokenized / unindexed field. Maybe the problem is that it has
> to contain a string, whereas serialized objects should really be stored
> as byte[]. Is that the deal?

------------------------------------------ooO---"---Ooo-------------------,                "I hate this game, lets play it
Dr. Frank  Sven  Nestel,, 
Spiele von Doris und Frank, Wolfsstaudenring 32, D-91056 Erlangen,

View raw message