Mailing-List: contact dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of yseeley@gmail.com designates
 209.85.161.48 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:sender:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date
         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
        b=IlbnsZgg8svmH9dLNF9wtNcBYOURr6lD+D1X23lTerIMJ4DHJ1mEOcta13+C7Xm37v
         /RoAhN4LvjuBYsqs5++R+VJvgsDTR+mWPPwXVj5KP06UutXXbedHSkli1XDGTIZQIdsw
         YEwa39i8X/e62fDPtfJ83tkRFXP29ilb5flNM=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: yseeley@gmail.com
Reply-To: yonik@lucidimagination.com
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikSanHMw8ueLBEaJoXxqJzR=cXmJnfZ1gLWxWhq@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTim6MjccRDwp8DT-tTbG9JLE74A0GG8e48i0b=hz@mail.gmail.com>
	<alpine.DEB.1.10.1010281653220.28331@radix.cryptio.net>
	<AANLkTimY+rqbGJnAGEwyNP2OfiwhEGuAkYMF5GbY_5Qi@mail.gmail.com>
	<alpine.DEB.1.10.1010291032320.11189@radix.cryptio.net>
	<AANLkTikWg8HEgKz4_zOfZjgFTJj1MKv3dSMVAod-XOhe@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTikS27+hm5V_bkm13TBSeA_H-+K=b5S=HtyrsWdt@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTimf-muTMb4H16cKkDXDeTb_fEpG5ReGRDKLj54R@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=fgMAFcLeLLtLUeBN33ySBntYGx=rFLp_-QZZx@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=kLzsPEoJLN1rtxpxZmgFT7r8U8kGyWnhewQyW@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=eqwjJbouBmTcF9AaX_d8bpRKpu_xgo+qUr-DH@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTikDNhoMMAQ=c3aM9FXkaAMqsHHaoSN5dt1tfXXm@mail.gmail.com>
	<000e01cb7841$aa7dce50$ff796af0$@thetaphi.de>
	<AANLkTi=+3cJ2yMqn75YpYmi-Xn3VL98p5WwrSg5foeie@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTikSanHMw8ueLBEaJoXxqJzR=cXmJnfZ1gLWxWhq@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:54:51 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTikWUNp_u84wkT3mdu46L3YOfvoGh+Tvmdu=adC4@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: inconsistency/performance trap of empty terms
From: Yonik Seeley <yonik@lucidimagination.com>
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Earwin Burrfoot <earwin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 18:49, Uwe Schindler <uwe@thetaphi.de> wrote:
>>> In my opinion, we should not have analyzers at all (just my personal opinion). "new Field(name, TokenStream)" is much enough from consistency standpoint!
>>
>> Indeed, my friend!
>>
>
> i agree (for the indexer), but a lot of people like to use the
> QueryParser.... so we need a "tokenstream-factory" of some sort
> (Analyzer today).

If it's only for the QP, a simple method that one could override would suffice:
QueryParser.getTokenStream(String field, String value)

If it's not just for the QP, then we have Analyzer (as you've pointed out).

-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org