Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Message-Id: <1195384072.4792.1221956273@webmail.messagingengine.com>
From: "Michael McCandless" <lucene@mikemccandless.com>
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <c68e39170711171749x68bceb6by5222891ea18f47f0@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Payload API
In-Reply-To: <c68e39170711171749x68bceb6by5222891ea18f47f0@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 06:07:52 -0500


"Yonik Seeley" <yonik@apache.org> wrote:
> So I think we should change + finalize the payload API before Lucene
> 2.3 comes out.
> 
> Single biggest drawback about current payloads is that there isn't any
> explicit support for adding different types of payloads to the same
> token.
> I don't really see a good fix to that though, so I'm OK with leaving
> that as it is.
> 
> One change I'd support is to remove the Payload class and replace it
> with members directly on Token:
> 
> class Token {
>     byte[] payload;
>     int payloadLength;
>     void setPayload(byte[], int length)
>     byte[] getPayload()
>     int getPayloadLength()
> ...
> }

+1

Mike

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