lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-2294) Create IndexWriterConfiguration and store all of IW configuration there
Date Sat, 06 Mar 2010 10:45:27 GMT


Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-2294:

OK let's keep the semantics of "if you pass null that means restore to default".

Should we rename UNLIMITED_FIELD_LENGTH -> DEFAULT_MAX_FIELD_LENGTH?  (Though w/ the new
issue this should be going away from IWC anyway).

bq. IWC.toString() includes '\n' between settings

Ahh, I misread it (I thought IW was doing \n followed by single space).  I agree multiple
lines is much better.  How about making IW also do multiple lines for its non-IWC settings
that are messaged?  And then removing the config= from the output?  Ie all I see is a bunch
of settings.  I don't think [in this debug printout] that we need to message which setting
was on IW and which was from the IWC.

bq. I've commented on it in this issue - MP requires an IW instance to be passed to its ctor.(see
my comment from 04/Mar/10 09:28 PM).

Ahh, sorry, right.  Annoying we moved IW as required into MP :(  Hrmph.

bq. I think I'll just clone the incoming IWC on IW and leave the rest as-is?

OK, I think this is fine, for starters.  The API semantics are clearly defined, so, if at
a later date we harden the enforcement (say throw IllegalStateEx if you try to change anything
after IWC has been consumed by IW, that's fair game).

Maybe clearly state in the jdocs that presently no settings are version dependent, so it's
just a placeholder?  (Basically, elevate the code comment that already says this, into the
jdocs).  Whenever a class in Lucene takes a Version, we should strongly document how Version
alters settings, even if it's a no-op placeholder.   (And I agree we should have it here as

Patch looks good Shai, thanks!

> Create IndexWriterConfiguration and store all of IW configuration there
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: LUCENE-2294
>                 URL:
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Index
>            Reporter: Shai Erera
>            Assignee: Michael McCandless
>             Fix For: 3.1
>         Attachments: 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();
> ** 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:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message