lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Chris Male (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-2310) Reduce Fieldable, AbstractField and Field complexity
Date Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:56:27 GMT


Chris Male commented on LUCENE-2310:

You should also not be able to set the TokenStream in NF.

Yes good point.

IMO, i would keep AbstractField and only remove Fieldable, as interfaces are not wanted in

Actually I would like to remove both actually.  There doesn't seem much reason to keep AbstractField,
especially since its already dependent on Field.XYZ and seems only to only store all the various
properties, most of which will be moved away to FieldType anyway.

Would a compromise be to also add an UOE to setting the TokenStream in NumericField? It does
still have the concept of a TokenStream, so it is a Field, but a specialisation which handles
the TokenStream itself.

> Reduce Fieldable, AbstractField and Field complexity
> ----------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: LUCENE-2310
>                 URL:
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>          Components: Index
>            Reporter: Chris Male
>         Attachments: LUCENE-2310-Deprecate-AbstractField.patch
> In order to move field type like functionality into its own class, we really need to
try to tackle the hierarchy of Fieldable, AbstractField and Field.  Currently AbstractField
depends on Field, and does not provide much more functionality that storing fields, most of
which are being moved over to FieldType.  Therefore it seems ideal to try to deprecate AbstractField
(and possible Fieldable), moving much of the functionality into Field and FieldType.

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