Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1F9307E0B for ; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 17:59:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 22869 invoked by uid 500); 2 Sep 2011 17:59:34 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 22609 invoked by uid 500); 2 Sep 2011 17:59:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 22346 invoked by uid 99); 2 Sep 2011 17:59:33 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Sep 2011 17:59:33 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2000.5 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [140.211.11.116] (HELO hel.zones.apache.org) (140.211.11.116) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Sep 2011 17:59:31 +0000 Received: from hel.zones.apache.org (hel.zones.apache.org [140.211.11.116]) by hel.zones.apache.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 543273CEA0 for ; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 17:59:10 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 17:59:10 +0000 (UTC) From: "Yonik Seeley (JIRA)" To: dev@lucene.apache.org Message-ID: <1367736278.11418.1314986350341.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 X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2308?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13096167#comment-13096167 ] Yonik Seeley commented on LUCENE-2308: -------------------------------------- Regarding the latest patch: {code} - public Field(String name, FieldType type) { + public Field(String name, CoreFieldType type) { {code} Seems like the FieldType interface should be used for parameters and return types? > 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-FT-interface.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