Mailing-List: contact dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 12:18:59 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Robert Muir (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Message-ID: 
 <698900652.16097.1300018739450.JavaMail.tomcat@hel.zones.apache.org>
Subject: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-2308) Separately specify a field's type
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=13006185#comment-13006185 ] 

Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-2308:
-------------------------------------

{quote}
Moving stuff from Solr to Lucene involves lots of politics. It is way easier to let Solr adopt eventually than fight your way through the politics (this is my opinion though.)
{quote}

Then why do we still have merged codebases?
If this is the way things are, then we should un-merge the two projects. 

because as a lucene developer, i spend a lot of time trying to do my part to fix various things in Solr... if its a one-way-street then we need to un-merge.


> 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
>              Labels: gsoc2011, lucene-gsoc-11
>             Fix For: 4.0
>
>
> 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.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

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