Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Message-ID: <634881811.1218287804739.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 06:16:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Eks Dev (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: [jira] Updated: (LUCENE-1219) support array/offset/ length setters
 for Field with binary data
In-Reply-To: <1496674159.1205235167303.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1219?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Eks Dev updated LUCENE-1219:
----------------------------

    Attachment: LUCENE-1219.extended.patch

bq. couldn't you just call document.getFieldable(name), and then call binaryValue(byte[] result) on that Fieldable, and then get the length from it (getBinaryLength()) too? (Trying to minimize API changes).

sure, good tip, I this could work.  No need to have this byte[]->Fieldable-byte[] loop, it confuses. I have attached patch that uses this approach. But I created getBinaryValue(byte[]) instead of binaryValue(byte[]) as we have binaryValue() as deprecated method (would be confusing as well). Not really tested, but looks simple enough 

Just thinking aloud
This is one nice feature, but I permanently had a feeling I do not understand this Field structures, roles and responsibilities :)  Field/Fieldable/AbstractField hierarchy is really ripe for good re-factoring.This bigamy with index / search use cases makes things not really easy to follow, Hoss has right, we need some way to divorce RetrievedField from FieldToBeIndexed, they are definitely not the same, just very similar.   

> support array/offset/ length setters for Field with binary data
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-1219
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1219
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Index
>            Reporter: Eks Dev
>            Assignee: Michael McCandless
>            Priority: Minor
>         Attachments: LUCENE-1219.extended.patch, LUCENE-1219.extended.patch, LUCENE-1219.patch, LUCENE-1219.patch, LUCENE-1219.patch, LUCENE-1219.patch, LUCENE-1219.take2.patch, LUCENE-1219.take3.patch
>
>
> currently Field/Fieldable interface supports only compact, zero based byte arrays. This forces end users to create and copy content of new objects before passing them to Lucene as such fields are often of variable size. Depending on use case, this can bring far from negligible  performance  improvement. 
> this approach extends Fieldable interface with 3 new methods   
> getOffset(); gettLenght(); and getBinaryValue() (this only returns reference to the array)
>    

-- 
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