lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Adnan Duric <adu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: FieldType refactoring?
Date Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:05:18 GMT
That sounds reasonable. A couple questions:

   - If the user enters the wrong pairings, we might need to throw a
   relevant exception, or have a 'silent' default that gets used.
   - Apart from IndexableFieldType classes, the only dependency for
   FieldType's mutators seems to be in DocumentStoredFieldVisitor. Is this
   correct?


Regards,


Adnan


On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Michael McCandless <
lucene@mikemccandless.com> wrote:

> 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