Mailing-List: contact dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:27:10 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Yonik Seeley (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Message-ID: 
 <1973345180.3268.1314808030753.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=13094662#comment-13094662 ] 

Yonik Seeley commented on LUCENE-2308:
--------------------------------------

Since it seems like there is no agreement on enforcing immutability, perhaps we shouldn't.
We don't do it in a lot of other places, for example all of our query classes (and I don't think we should start).

Rethinking the "interface" a bit... even that seems like a little overkill (and perhaps just a by-product of no one agreeing on the concrete implementation?)  After all, if this is to just be a holder for parameters (like indexed, stored, etc) then allowing one to subclass doesn't add any power or even make much sense (they aren't going to change the "behavior" of anything, right?)  The other normal use cases for interfaces wouldn't seem to apply to this situation either.

> 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: core/index
>            Reporter: Michael McCandless
>            Assignee: Michael McCandless
>              Labels: gsoc2011, lucene-gsoc-11, mentor
>             Fix For: 4.0
>
>         Attachments: LUCENE-2308-10.patch, LUCENE-2308-11.patch, LUCENE-2308-12.patch, LUCENE-2308-13.patch, LUCENE-2308-14.patch, LUCENE-2308-15.patch, LUCENE-2308-16.patch, LUCENE-2308-17.patch, LUCENE-2308-18.patch, LUCENE-2308-19.patch, LUCENE-2308-2.patch, LUCENE-2308-20.patch, LUCENE-2308-21.patch, LUCENE-2308-3.patch, LUCENE-2308-4.patch, LUCENE-2308-5.patch, LUCENE-2308-6.patch, LUCENE-2308-7.patch, LUCENE-2308-8.patch, LUCENE-2308-9.patch, LUCENE-2308-branch.patch, LUCENE-2308-final.patch, LUCENE-2308-ltc.patch, LUCENE-2308-merge-1.patch, LUCENE-2308-merge-2.patch, LUCENE-2308-merge-3.patch, LUCENE-2308.branchdiffs, LUCENE-2308.branchdiffs.moved, LUCENE-2308.patch, LUCENE-2308.patch, LUCENE-2308.patch, LUCENE-2308.patch, LUCENE-2308.patch
>
>
> 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