Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Message-ID: <260270012.236821268431287385.JavaMail.jira@brutus.apache.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:01:27 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Chris Male (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: [jira] Issue Comment Edited: (LUCENE-2308) Separately specify a
 field's type
In-Reply-To: <516615439.186211268253027222.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-2308?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12844710#action_12844710 ] 

Chris Male edited comment on LUCENE-2308 at 3/12/10 10:01 PM:
--------------------------------------------------------------

{quote}
I'm not sure if strict immutability is necessary - there's everything in between too.
One can simply say that all changes should be made before first use, and after that point it's undefined.
{quote}

I'm really unsure about this if people are going to be using a FieldType instance with multiple Fields.  Perhaps this really is just an edge case though.

{quote}
Unrelated question: I assume that this would retain the same flexibility as we have today... the ability to change FieldType for field "foo" from one document to the next?
{quote}

Are you wanting to be able to reuse the same Field instance in both documents while defining separate FieldTypes? Or is creating new Field instances okay?

      was (Author: cmale):
    {quote}
I'm not sure if strict immutability is necessary - there's everything in between too.
One can simply say that all changes should be made before first use, and after that point it's undefined.
{quote}

I'm really unsure about this if people are going to be using a FieldType instance with multiple Fields.  Perhaps this really is just an edge case.

{quote}
Unrelated question: I assume that this would retain the same flexibility as we have today... the ability to change FieldType for field "foo" from one document to the next?
{quote}

Are you wanting to be able to reuse the same Field instance in both documents while defining separate FieldTypes? Or is creating new Field instances okay?
  
> Separately specify a field's type
> ---------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-2308
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2308
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Index
>            Reporter: Michael McCandless
>
> This came up from dicussions on IRC.  I'm summarizing here...
> Today when you make a Field to add to a document you can set things
> index or not, stored or not, analyzed or not, details like omitTfAP,
> omitNorms, index term vectors (separately controlling
> offsets/positions), etc.
> I think we should factor these out into a new class (FieldType?).
> Then you could re-use this FieldType instance across multiple fields.
> The Field instance would still hold the actual value.
> We could then do per-field analyzers by adding a setAnalyzer on the
> FieldType, instead of the separate PerFieldAnalzyerWrapper (likewise
> for per-field codecs (with flex), where we now have
> PerFieldCodecWrapper).
> This would NOT be a schema!  It's just refactoring what we already
> specify today.  EG it's not serialized into the index.
> This has been discussed before, and I know Michael Busch opened a more
> ambitious (I think?) issue.  I think this is a good first baby step.  We could
> consider a hierarchy of FIeldType (NumericFieldType, etc.) but maybe hold
> off on that for starters...

-- 
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