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 Fri, 21 Oct 2011 14:32:40 GMT
Fair enough. I'd just like to get some opinions on using EnumSet instead of
the bit field in the ctor. So instead of having

new FieldType(INDEXED | STORED)

we wrap the options in an EnumSet,

new FieldType(EnumSet.of(INDEXED, STORED))

The obvious advantage is that we don't need to explicitly set the option
members in FieldType, so no binary logic.


Regards,


Adnan



On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Chris Male <gento0nz@gmail.com> wrote:

> Good question.  I think FieldType should still require an explicit
> parameter.  If we then want to build a sugar StoredFieldType class, well
> then thats fine, but FieldType should layout clearly what values can be
> set.
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Adnan Duric <aduric@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That could work, but what happens when the user doesn't want indexing, ie,
>> indexed = false? I guess the IndexOptions argument could be ignored if no
>> indexing is taking place, but then we are forcing the user to enter a dummy
>> parameter.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Chris Male <gento0nz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Chris Male | Software Developer | DutchWorks | www.dutchworks.nl
>

Mime
View raw message