lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Hoss Man (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-4369) StringFields name is unintuitive and not helpful
Date Wed, 12 Sep 2012 19:05:08 GMT


Hoss Man commented on LUCENE-4369:

bq. the mailing list thread referenced from there is in my opinion unrelated.

Did you read the whole thread?  It's littered with comments about confusion between how that
UN_TOKENIZED related to the Analyzer configured on the IndexWriter -- some people thought
it ment the *tokenizer* in the Analyzer wouldn't be used, bu the rest of their analyzer would.
 It's very representative of lots of other threads i'd seen over the years.

bq. I disagree when we're talking about Solr users who are just using the schema.xml file

I don't think anyone is talking about changing solr.StrField and solr.TextField -- this issue
is about the convincient subclasses of oal.document.Field...

> StringFields name is unintuitive and not helpful
> ------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: LUCENE-4369
>                 URL:
>             Project: Lucene - Core
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Robert Muir
>         Attachments: LUCENE-4369.patch
> There's a huge difference between TextField and StringField, StringField screws up scoring
and bypasses your Analyzer.
> (see java-user thread "Custom Analyzer Not Called When Indexing" as an example.)
> The name we use here is vital, otherwise people will get bad results.
> I think we should rename StringField to MatchOnlyField.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message