lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Robert Muir (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-4369) StringFields name is unintuitive and not helpful
Date Tue, 11 Sep 2012 12:02:08 GMT


Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-4369:

I am against this, we should change this before Lucene 4.0. We have seen already on user list
that many people understand it wrong, so for me this issue is a "Blocker" for 4.0.

I disagree with this. I've watched NOT_ANALYZED pop up on the user list for older releases
time after time, its frustrating, but this problem is nothing new.
Its not introduced with 4.0: I opened this issue because I thought was useful feedback from
someone testing the Lucene 4.0 BETA and its really trivial to fix,
once we settle on a name.

I don't think we should try to block releases when nobody can even agree on a good name yet.

We should instead focus on picking a good name: we can implement this for 4.1 or 5.0 or whatever.

> 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