Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Message-ID: <2084909755.228101268406447221.JavaMail.jira@brutus.apache.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:07:27 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Robert Muir (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-2309) Fully decouple IndexWriter from
 analyzers
In-Reply-To: <1906601074.186321268253387130.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-2309?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12844533#action_12844533 ] 

Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-2309:
-------------------------------------

{quote}
So with the current APIs we cannot get around the requirement to reuse the same Attribute instances during the whole indexing without a major speed impact.
{quote}

I agree. I guess I'll try to simplifiy my concern: maybe we don't necessarily 
need something that looks like the old TokenStream API, but I feel it would
be worth our time to think about supporting 'some alternative API' that makes
it easier to work with lots of context across different Tokens.

I personally do not mind how this is done with the capture/restore state API,
but I feel that its pretty unnatural for many developers, and in the future folks
might want to do more complex analysis (maybe even light pos-tagging, etc)
that requires said context, and we should plan for this.

I feel this wasn't such an issue with the old TokenStream API, but maybe there
is another way to address this potential problem.

> Fully decouple IndexWriter from analyzers
> -----------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-2309
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2309
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Index
>            Reporter: Michael McCandless
>
> IndexWriter only needs an AttributeSource to do indexing.
> Yet, today, it interacts with Field instances, holds a private
> analyzers, invokes analyzer.reusableTokenStream, has to deal with a
> wide variety (it's not analyzed; it is analyzed but it's a Reader,
> String; it's pre-analyzed).
> I'd like to have IW only interact with attr sources that already
> arrived with the fields.  This would be a powerful decoupling -- it
> means others are free to make their own attr sources.
> They need not even use any of Lucene's analysis impls; eg they can
> integrate to other things like [OpenPipeline|http://www.openpipeline.org].
> Or make something completely custom.
> LUCENE-2302 is already a big step towards this: it makes IW agnostic
> about which attr is "the term", and only requires that it provide a
> BytesRef (for flex).
> Then I think LUCENE-2308 would get us most of the remaining way -- ie, if the
> FieldType knows the analyzer to use, then we could simply create a
> getAttrSource() method (say) on it and move all the logic IW has today
> onto there.  (We'd still need existing IW code for back-compat).

-- 
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