Mailing-List: contact dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 15:19:38 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Chris Male (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Message-ID: 
 <1290499984.7879.1314717578097.JavaMail.tomcat@hel.zones.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <146451556.12961.1310639459816.JavaMail.tomcat@hel.zones.apache.org>
Subject: [jira] [Issue Comment Edited] (LUCENE-3312) Break out StorableField
 from IndexableField
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3312?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13093802#comment-13093802 ] 

Chris Male edited comment on LUCENE-3312 at 8/30/11 3:17 PM:
-------------------------------------------------------------

So one thought would be to have a different class being returned by reader.document(), we could call it StoredDocument and it would only make access to StorableFields.  I like this idea since it gets people over the hump of piggybacking Field, but it is a bw compat break.  Any objections?

      was (Author: cmale):
    So one thought would be to have a different class being returned reader.document(), we could call it StoredDocument and it would only make access to StorableFields.  I like this idea since it gets people over the hump of piggybacking Field, but it is a bw compat break.  Any objections?
  
> Break out StorableField from IndexableField
> -------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-3312
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3312
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: core/index
>            Reporter: Michael McCandless
>             Fix For: Field Type branch
>
>
> In the field type branch we have strongly decoupled
> Document/Field/FieldType impl from the indexer, by having only a
> narrow API (IndexableField) passed to IndexWriter.  This frees apps up
> use their own "documents" instead of the "user-space" impls we provide
> in oal.document.
> Similarly, with LUCENE-3309, we've done the same thing on the
> doc/field retrieval side (from IndexReader), with the
> StoredFieldsVisitor.
> But, maybe we should break out StorableField from IndexableField,
> such that when you index a doc you provide two Iterables -- one for the
> IndexableFields and one for the StorableFields.  Either can be null.
> One downside is possible perf hit for fields that are both indexed &
> stored (ie, we visit them twice, lookup their name in a hash twice,
> etc.).  But the upside is a cleaner separation of concerns in API....

--
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