lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shai Erera <ser...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Is TopDocCollector's collect() implementation correct?
Date Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:46:56 GMT
I created LUCENE-1575 which summarizes what we've agreed to do in this
issue. Please review it. Also, let's move the discussion around the names to
the issue.

I hope I covered everything we agreed on - I had to create the issue twice
as it contains a lot of text and the session expired on me in the middle,
and everything I typed got lost ... damn.

Shai

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Michael McCandless <
lucene@mikemccandless.com> wrote:

> 2009/3/27 Shai Erera <serera@gmail.com>:
> > I really liked HItCollector and hate to give up the name ... However
> > Collector is fine with me either, and it is at least more generic than
> > HitCollector ...
> >
> > Hitable sounds too aggressive/violent to me :)
>
> Now that you raised this objection, I can't get the image out of my
> head, and I agree :)
>
> > BTW, I guess I should create some new searcher API which receives this
> > Collector class (is Collector the chosen name?) and deprecate those who
> > accept HitCollector?
> > Those can also skip the instanceof check, and wrapping of HC to MRHC ...
>
> OK that'd be great.  There are also default "score" methods in Scorer
> that take HitCollector which'll have to be deprecated as well, and
> some scorers (eg BooleanScorer) define those methods.
>
> > That also means that I should throw that MRHC wrapper (which rebases doc
> > Ids)? If HitCollector is deprecated, then there's no need to keep it.
>  But
> > perhaps we want it there in 2.9 for easier migration? Personally I think
> > it's redundant since in 3.0 people will need to change all their
> collectors
> > anyway (since HitCollector will be removed, and every class which extends
> > HitCollector will need be modified). What do you think?
>
> I think discard it, assuming the above full-replacement approach
> doesn't hit any snags.
>
> > Also, there's no need to deprecate MRHC, since it's only in the trunk - I
> > can simply rename it, right?
>
> Exactly :)  A nice freedom... maybe we should never make any releases!
>  (kidding)
>
> > Ok I'll go ahead and prepare a patch. We can discuss the name more, at
> the
> > end it will just be a short "refactor" action in Eclipse, so that
> shouldn't
> > hold us (or me) up.
>
> OK thanks Shai.  Make sure you mark the issue as Fix Version 2.9.
>
> Mike
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>

Mime
View raw message