lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Updated: (LUCENE-2294) Create IndexWriterConfiguration and store all of IW configuration there
Date Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:50:27 GMT

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2294?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]

Michael McCandless updated LUCENE-2294:
---------------------------------------

    Attachment: check.py

Patch looks good Shai -- that was fast adding back in the analyzers :)

A few things:

  * Should we also move MergedSegmentWarmer to IWC?

  * This adds more Version.LUCENE_CURRENTs in contrib... but I don't
    see any way around that (and it's good to add the placeholder to
    IWC).

  * There were some tests that previously passed null as analyzers,
    that you changed to WhitespaceAnalyzer, which seems OK.

  * I see you cleaned some stuff up in the process (fixed "extends
    TestCase" -> extends "LuceneTestCase", use TEST_VERSION_CURRENT
    consistently instead using class member, added Version to ctor for
    analyzers that now require them, noting that test is deprecated
    since it only tests deprecated class, fixed places where tests
    passed null as analyzer) -- good!

  * There are a number of tests where the analyzers were changed, eg
    Simple -> Whitespace or Standard -> Whitespace -- I attached
    check.py (run it w/ 1 arg which is path to the patch file).  Note
    that not all things it finds are actually changed (ie it has some
    false pos's, but I think not too many).  Tests still pass... but
    it makes me a bit nervous.  Shouldn't we just keep the same
    analyzer?


> Create IndexWriterConfiguration and store all of IW configuration there
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-2294
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2294
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Index
>            Reporter: Shai Erera
>            Assignee: Michael McCandless
>             Fix For: 3.1
>
>         Attachments: check.py, LUCENE-2294.patch, LUCENE-2294.patch, LUCENE-2294.patch,
LUCENE-2294.patch
>
>
> I would like to factor out of all IW configuration parameters into a single configuration
class, which I propose to name IndexWriterConfiguration (or IndexWriterConfig). I want to
store there almost everything besides the Directory, and to reduce all the ctors down to one:
IndexWriter(Directory, IndexWriterConfiguration). What I was thinking of storing there are
the following parameters:
> * All of ctors parameters, except for Directory.
> * The different setters where it makes sense. For example I still think infoStream should
be set on IW directly.
> I'm thinking that IWC should expose everything in a setter/getter methods, and defaults
to whatever IW defaults today. Except for Analyzer which will need to be defined in the ctor
of IWC and won't have a setter.
> I am not sure why MaxFieldLength is required in all IW ctors, yet IW declares a DEFAULT
(which is an int and not MaxFieldLength). Do we still think that 10000 should be the default?
Why not default to UNLIMITED and otherwise let the application decide what LIMITED means for
it? I would like to make MFL optional on IWC and default to something, and I hope that default
will be UNLIMITED. We can document that on IWC, so that if anyone chooses to move to the new
API, he should be aware of that ...
> I plan to deprecate all the ctors and getters/setters and replace them by:
> * One ctor as described above
> * getIndexWriterConfiguration, or simply getConfig, which can then be queried for the
setting of interest.
> * About the setters, I think maybe we can just introduce a setConfig method which will
override everything that is overridable today, except for Analyzer. So someone could do iw.getConfig().setSomething();
iw.setConfig(newConfig);
> ** The setters on IWC can return an IWC to allow chaining set calls ... so the above
will turn into iw.setConfig(iw.getConfig().setSomething1().setSomething2()); 
> BTW, this is needed for Parallel Indexing (see LUCENE-1879), but I think it will greatly
simplify IW's API.
> I'll start to work on a patch.

-- 
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


Mime
View raw message