Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 63635 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2008 17:21:05 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 11 Jul 2008 17:21:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 76841 invoked by uid 500); 11 Jul 2008 17:21:03 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 76703 invoked by uid 500); 11 Jul 2008 17:21:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list java-dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 76693 invoked by uid 99); 11 Jul 2008 17:21:03 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:21:03 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2000.0 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [140.211.11.140] (HELO brutus.apache.org) (140.211.11.140) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:20:08 +0000 Received: from brutus (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by brutus.apache.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B240C234C168 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:20:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <2108817201.1215796831728.JavaMail.jira@brutus> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:20:31 -0700 (PDT) From: "DM Smith (JIRA)" To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: [jira] Created: (LUCENE-1333) Token implementation needs improvements MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Token implementation needs improvements --------------------------------------- Key: LUCENE-1333 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1333 Project: Lucene - Java Issue Type: Improvement Components: Analysis Affects Versions: 2.3.1 Environment: All Reporter: DM Smith Priority: Minor Fix For: 2.4 This was discussed in the thread (not sure which place is best to reference so here are two): http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-java-dev/200805.mbox/%3C21F67CC2-EBB4-48A0-894E-FBA4AECC0D50@gmail.com%3E or to see it all at once: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/lucene/java-dev/62851 Issues: 1. JavaDoc is insufficient, leading one to read the code to figure out how to use the class. 2. Deprecations are incomplete. The constructors that take String as an argument and the methods that take and/or return String should *all* be deprecated. 3. The allocation policy is too aggressive. With large tokens the resulting buffer can be over-allocated. A less aggressive algorithm would be better. In the thread, the Python example is good as it is computationally simple. 4. The parts of the code that currently use Token's deprecated methods can be upgraded now rather than waiting for 3.0. As it stands, filter chains that alternate between char[] and String are sub-optimal. Currently, it is used in core by Query classes. The rest are in contrib, mostly in analyzers. 5. Some internal optimizations can be done with regard to char[] allocation. 6. TokenStream has next() and next(Token), next() should be deprecated, so that reuse is maximized and descendant classes should be rewritten to over-ride next(Token) 7. Tokens are often stored as a String in a Term. It would be good to add constructors that took a Token. This would simplify the use of the two together. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org