Mailing-List: contact dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 13:11:23 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Chris Male (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Message-ID: <864860132.26501.1338556283192.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


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3312?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13287380#comment-13287380 ] 

Chris Male commented on LUCENE-3312:
------------------------------------

I am all for the decoupling too, just want to thoroughly kick the tyres on this one :D  I dont want another FieldType like discussion.

{quote}
Document.add is just type overloaded, but Document.get* will get
messier: we'll need getStored and getIndexed? I guess that would be
simpler if Document could just store Field instances... hmm.
{quote}

Perhaps if we just limit the API in Document we can handle this okay.  We can provide the overloaded add methods, two get methods and 1 remove method.

{quote}
Maybe IndexDocument? I think it's OK as an interface if we mark it
@lucene.internal? This is the raw, super expert low-level that indexer
uses to consume documents... it has only 2 methods, and I think for
expert users it could be a hassle if we force the impl to inherit from
our base class...
{quote}

+1 to both the name and the handling of the interface.

{quote}
Should StoredDocument (returned from IR.document) be "read only"? Like
you can iterate its fields, look them up, etc., but not eg remove them?
{quote}

+1 You shouldn't really need to remove fields, you can achieve that by not retrieving them in the first place

                
> 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
>
>
> 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