lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Terry Steichen <te...@net-frame.com>
Subject Re: Lucene 1.9 RC1 release available
Date Wed, 22 Feb 2006 00:45:51 GMT
Hoss,

Whether the previous behavior (which I believe has been present in 
Lucene from the outset) was a "bug" or a "feature" is kind of academic.  
My point is that this behavior has value that's not countered by any 
argument that any significant value is added by eliminating it.

As to your riot?(0,3) syntax proposal, IMHO it's (a) too complicated, 
and (b) changes what has been previously the default behavior. 

Perhaps I have been "lucky" with the behavior of Lucene.  Alternatively, 
perhaps Lucene has been "lucky" to 'stumble' on a more useful capability 
than was arguably envisioned by the drafters of the documentation.

In either case, what I'm arguing is that the current behavior makes more 
sense in the real world of query expressions (that is, makes the most 
common query expressions simpler), so why not continue it?

Terry


Chris Hostetter wrote:

>: of query).  Under the previous versions of QueryParser, I could simply
>: specify 'riot???' and capture all of those variants.
>
>I don't have a strong opinion on this issue, but it seems clear to me that
>this was a bug in 1.4.3 not a change in the orriginally intended behavior.
>queryparsersyntax.html clearly states...
>
>  To perform a single character wildcard search use the "?" symbol.
>  To perform a multiple character wildcard search use the "*" symbol.
>
>...which implies to me that if you were relying on "riot???" to match
>"riots" you weren't using the code as documented, and were just getting
>lucky that what you were doing worked.  Applying LUCENE-306 definitely
>seems like the right thing to do to fix a bug in the documented behavior
>-- espeically since the behavior as documented closely matches what people
>use to file globbibg would probably consider the "expected" behavior.
>
>adding syntax support for an "n to m" character match (ala "riot?{0,3}")
>would probably be a worthwhile new feature - but it seems like exactly
>that: a new feature, not an issue with the the patch as applied.
>
>
>
>-Hoss
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>  
>

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


Mime
View raw message