lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael McCandless <luc...@mikemccandless.com>
Subject Re: FieldType refactoring?
Date Thu, 20 Oct 2011 18:16:54 GMT
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:35 PM, Chris Male <gento0nz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Adnan Duric <aduric@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Chris,
>> Thanks for the feedback. If you want to create an issue in JIRA, I'd be
>> happy to contribute a patch to convert the FieldType constructor to bit
>> flags. How would you want to handle the IndexOptions enum?
>
> That's a good question.  Forcing it to be a compulsory constructor argument
> is a little messy, but so is having two constructors to support defaults.
>  This is the kind of problem that we discussed in LUCENE-2308 as Mike
> mentioned.  Feel free to open the issue yourself :) and attach a patch which
> deals with it in a way you feel happy with.  We can all then review it and
> discuss.

I think we could cut over IndexOptions to bits as well?  DOCS, FREQS, POSITIONS?

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.

Mike

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


Mime
View raw message