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 883BA7A5C for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 17:14:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 24076 invoked by uid 500); 9 Dec 2011 17:14:02 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 24033 invoked by uid 500); 9 Dec 2011 17:14:02 -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 24026 invoked by uid 99); 9 Dec 2011 17:14:02 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 09 Dec 2011 17:14:02 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2001.2 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, 09 Dec 2011 17:14:00 +0000 Received: from hel.zones.apache.org (hel.zones.apache.org [140.211.11.116]) by hel.zones.apache.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0BCE10A906 for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 17:13:40 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 17:13:40 +0000 (UTC) From: "Robert Muir (Commented) (JIRA)" To: dev@lucene.apache.org Message-ID: <1808480195.58966.1323450820859.JavaMail.tomcat@hel.zones.apache.org> In-Reply-To: <242186569.47491.1323214360005.JavaMail.tomcat@hel.zones.apache.org> Subject: [jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-3622) separate IndexDocValues interface from implementation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13166319#comment-13166319 ] Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-3622: ------------------------------------- {quote} I'd also have argued that in 4 we should rename the function DocValues class to something else. It's advanced to mess in that area, and people can handle a change in a move to 4. {quote} Should we try this out in the branch here? what would be a better name? FunctionValues? > separate IndexDocValues interface from implementation > ----------------------------------------------------- > > Key: LUCENE-3622 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622 > Project: Lucene - Java > Issue Type: Task > Reporter: Robert Muir > Attachments: LUCENE-3622.patch > > > Currently the o.a.l.index.values contains both the abstract apis and Lucene40's current implementation. > I think we should move the implementation underneath Lucene40Codec, leaving only the abstract apis. > For example, simpletext might have a different implementation, and we might make a int8 implementation > underneath preflexcodec to support norms. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa 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