Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Message-ID: <1210940002.68171267709367124.JavaMail.jira@brutus.apache.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 13:29:27 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Shai Erera (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-2294) Create IndexWriterConfiguration and
 store all of IW configuration there
In-Reply-To: <136471578.62221267695747130.JavaMail.jira@brutus.apache.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2294?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12841239#action_12841239 ] 

Shai Erera commented on LUCENE-2294:
------------------------------------

bq. But, if we change the default to UNLIMITED

Today there is no DEFAULT .. IW forces you to pass MFL so whoever moves to the new API can define whatever he wants. We'll default to UNLIMITED but there won't be any back-compat issue ...

bq. we could make a TokenFilter to do this?

I'm afraid that will result in changing all Analyzers to work properly? Or you mean DW (or somewhere) will wrap whatever TS an Analyzer returns w/ this filter? That could work, but as soon as that becomes a filter, people may use it, and wrapping their TS w/ that filter will be unnecessary (and slow 'em down?). Also, if I'd use such a filter myself, I wouldn't put it last in the chain, so that I can avoid doing any processing on a term that is not going to end up in the index. Although that's not too critical because I'll be doing this for just one term ...

I guess I'd like to keep it as it is now, not turning the issue into a bigger thing ... and a filter alone won't solve it - we'd still need to provide a way to configure it, or otherwise everyone will need to wrap their Analyzers with such filter?

> 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
>             Fix For: 3.1
>
>
> 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