lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Male <gento...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: FieldType refactoring?
Date Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:52:59 GMT
I really favour sticking to the existing enum and don't think we should
unravel them into int flags for the reasons already put forward.

Having thought about my original concern, I think its best we don't make it
an optional argument, we should force users to specify what IndexOptions
they want explicitly.

On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Adnan Duric <aduric@gmail.com> wrote:

> We can pass an enum member individually (DOCS_ONLY, DOCS_AND_FREQS...) to
> the ctor to prevent inconsistencies. This way we would have the same number
> of extra arguments as splitting them, and no complex pair checking between
> them.
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Simon Willnauer <
> simon.willnauer@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:35 PM, Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Michael McCandless
>> > <lucene@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> We'd need checking in FT's ctor to catch wrong pairings, eg you cannot
>> >> turn ont POSITIONS unless you also turn on FREQS, and at least DOCS
>> >> must be set if INDEXED is set.
>> >>
>> >
>> > What is the problem with the enum? it prevents these inconsistencies...
>> +1 to stick to enums here!
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > lucidimagination.com
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>


-- 
Chris Male | Software Developer | DutchWorks | www.dutchworks.nl

Mime
View raw message