Mailing-List: contact lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Lucene Developers List" <lucene-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
From: Daniel Naber <daniel.naber@t-online.de>
To: "Lucene Developers List" <lucene-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Subject: Re: API cleanup: BooleanQuery.add()
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 22:17:17 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.6.82
References: <200408200048.46738@danielnaber.de> <41267191.6060905@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <41267191.6060905@apache.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200408212217.17855@danielnaber.de>

On Friday 20 August 2004 23:48, Doug Cutting wrote:

> I still prefer Occur.MUST, Occur.SHOULD and Occur.MUST_NOT.

Okay. I noticed that my suggested patch only changes BooleanQuery, but 
BooleanClause is public, too. So it should be changed as well. However, it 
implements Serializable and I don't know why. Does this mean we're limited 
in the changes that we can apply? So is it okay to deprecate (and later 
remove) the current constructor that takes two booleans and add one that 
takes the Occur object? 

> BooleanQuery is really a misnomer, since it is not the traditional tree
> of boolean operators.

Then maybe we should rename it for Lucene 2.0? Do you have a better name?

Regards
 Daniel

-- 
http://www.danielnaber.de

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org