lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Doron Cohen (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1333) Token implementation needs improvements
Date Sun, 10 Aug 2008 12:17:44 GMT


Doron Cohen commented on LUCENE-1333:

Actually I think one should never pass null to next(Token) API - ie a source token stream
need not check for null.
Funny I was about to comment on the same thing... 

In fact when the reuse API was introduced I believe null was suppose to mean - "nothing to
be reused, please just create your own". 

In case of a producer that cannot reuse - say it creates its own implementation of Token -
then there is no point in creating tokens by the consumer that will never be reused. 

But this also meant that in all the common cases, all tokenizers would need an additional
if() to verify that the reusable token is not null. Not so nice. 

So yes, I agree with you, just need to clarify this in TokenStream.nextToken(Token)'s javadocs.

> Token implementation needs improvements
> ---------------------------------------
>                 Key: LUCENE-1333
>                 URL:
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Analysis
>    Affects Versions: 2.3.1
>         Environment: All
>            Reporter: DM Smith
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 2.4
>         Attachments: LUCENE-1333-analysis.patch, LUCENE-1333-analyzers.patch, LUCENE-1333-core.patch,
LUCENE-1333-highlighter.patch, LUCENE-1333-instantiated.patch, LUCENE-1333-lucli.patch, LUCENE-1333-memory.patch,
LUCENE-1333-miscellaneous.patch, LUCENE-1333-queries.patch, LUCENE-1333-snowball.patch, LUCENE-1333-wikipedia.patch,
LUCENE-1333-wordnet.patch, LUCENE-1333-xml-query-parser.patch, LUCENE-1333.patch, LUCENE-1333.patch,
LUCENE-1333.patch, LUCENE-1333a.txt
> This was discussed in the thread (not sure which place is best to reference so here are
> or to see it all at once:
> Issues:
> 1. JavaDoc is insufficient, leading one to read the code to figure out how to use the
> 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:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message