lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From robert engels <>
Subject Re: Fieldable, AbstractField, Field
Date Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:26:03 GMT
Hindsight is great !

I am not saying anything was done wrong. I just think the projects  
that recognize where the API can be improved and do so in a later  
release - when they've had the hindsight - do better long-term.

With decorator and facade classes you may still not get 100% code  
compatibility, but for low-level (programmer centric) libraries this  
is not usually a problem.

I think the "drop in without changing a line of code" desire of the  
lucene project is not very useful long-term.

But as always - JMO.

On Mar 25, 2008, at 9:30 AM, Doug Cutting wrote:

> robert engels wrote:
>> Some would argue that all that Field needs is
>> FieldData getField(String name); and void setField(String  
>> name,FieldData data);
>> and FieldData has
>> toBytes(); fromBytes()
> Isn't hindsight wonderful!
>> Writing custom versions of IndexReader and IndexWriter was very  
>> difficult because them being tied to a directory (a set of files).
> No, as I've said before, writing custom versions of these was  
> difficult because they were not originally designed to be  
> pluggable, but rather concrete implementations only.
> Doug
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message