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 37DA0D351 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:46:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 7904 invoked by uid 500); 21 Jun 2012 13:46:43 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 7809 invoked by uid 500); 21 Jun 2012 13:46:43 -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 7800 invoked by uid 99); 21 Jun 2012 13:46:43 -0000 Received: from issues-vm.apache.org (HELO issues-vm) (140.211.11.160) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:46:43 +0000 Received: from isssues-vm.apache.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by issues-vm (Postfix) with ESMTP id E195D142865 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:46:42 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:46:42 +0000 (UTC) From: "Uwe Schindler (JIRA)" To: dev@lucene.apache.org Message-ID: <2002160390.38835.1340286402927.JavaMail.jiratomcat@issues-vm> In-Reply-To: <146451556.12961.1310639459816.JavaMail.tomcat@hel.zones.apache.org> Subject: [jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-3312) Break out StorableField from IndexableField 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-3312?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13398432#comment-13398432 ] Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-3312: --------------------------------------- Looks fine, I would disallow remove() completely like in Chris' iterator. > Break out StorableField from IndexableField > ------------------------------------------- > > Key: LUCENE-3312 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3312 > Project: Lucene - Java > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: core/index > Reporter: Michael McCandless > Assignee: Nikola Tankovic > Labels: gsoc2012, lucene-gsoc-12 > Fix For: Field Type branch > > Attachments: lucene-3312-patch-01.patch, lucene-3312-patch-02.patch, lucene-3312-patch-03.patch, lucene-3312-patch-04.patch, lucene-3312-patch-05.patch > > > In the field type branch we have strongly decoupled > Document/Field/FieldType impl from the indexer, by having only a > narrow API (IndexableField) passed to IndexWriter. This frees apps up > use their own "documents" instead of the "user-space" impls we provide > in oal.document. > Similarly, with LUCENE-3309, we've done the same thing on the > doc/field retrieval side (from IndexReader), with the > StoredFieldsVisitor. > But, maybe we should break out StorableField from IndexableField, > such that when you index a doc you provide two Iterables -- one for the > IndexableFields and one for the StorableFields. Either can be null. > One downside is possible perf hit for fields that are both indexed & > stored (ie, we visit them twice, lookup their name in a hash twice, > etc.). But the upside is a cleaner separation of concerns in API.... -- 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