Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 71284 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2010 09:23:01 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 18 Feb 2010 09:23:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 80719 invoked by uid 500); 18 Feb 2010 09:22:59 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-user-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 80642 invoked by uid 500); 18 Feb 2010 09:22:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list java-user@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 80632 invoked by uid 99); 18 Feb 2010 09:22:58 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 09:22:58 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of jmuguruza@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.227 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.220.227] (HELO mail-fx0-f227.google.com) (209.85.220.227) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 09:22:50 +0000 Received: by fxm27 with SMTP id 27so1704057fxm.5 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 01:22:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=eiWbPhq0TgTgCkAWa1sRHl+zzov1EiuAgCTQK2v4kYg=; b=c98ub0ujD6ME2pKHM/tdyauDYZn1LCCiJwSXTr8xNYSkHAVAysEeZOv+yLuA+kyESv 6LmZhVaf+URGvTvp3rAvP2EaaMygSxN0tjAWvHFiHKwbSKLgnRkroXTpp9OrjUl6pdE7 fRJGMYISILE48nNVBZ2aGX0xQIsJCmM4B372k= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=YQYVF/xI0NDkZm1vRWSnwFcTEiX3aOTQW4v5O5jk+FAAK6xTVGLAL3rwl0uNeeBxkm MbuAWTolGbMXa/a+Y5F3SxlOd/Lo6t3bhH8bgORs2w7nuqwZJLdrbuFsJv51ZYNQJ24+ tRPHf87DEKwD9ji/1ICCcnATf/aphx/8Oq1AM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.75.156 with SMTP id y28mr1779191faj.30.1266484950597; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 01:22:30 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 10:22:30 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: questions on upgrading to 3.0: Version.LUCENE_* and Field.setOmitNorms() From: jm To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org someone? On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 11:47 AM, jm wrote: > Hi, > > previously I was using 2.9 (upgraded from 2.4 but did not fix warnings > etc). Now I have upgraded to 3.0, so I had to fix all deprecated > methods etc. My question is with=A0Version type parameter in some > Token* classes. > > Some of our customers have our product with lucene 2.4 (some upgraded > from 2.3), and some have a newer version with lucene 2.9 (with > warnings etc). What Version value should I use now? The smallest say > Version.LUCENE_23 ? Any concern when they upgrade to the next of our > version with lucene 3.0? > > Also I was using Field.Index.TOKENIZED and Field.Index.UN_TOKENIZED, > but all fields had field.setOmitNorms(true); > Now I see there is Field.Index.NOT_ANALYZED_NO_NORMS, I guess I can > just use Field.Index.ANALYZED/Field.Index.NOT_ANALYZED and continue > calling field.setOmitNorms(true) on all fields right? > > many thanks > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org