[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6013?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14176921#comment-14176921 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-6013: -------------------------------------------- Thanks Rob, sorry about the noise in Lucene50FIS, I'll double check: there is a REAL change here, I completely rewrote how we encode IndexOptions. I found it really confusing how it was OMIT_THIS, STORE_THAT, OMIT_THIS_OTHER_THING before. > Remove IndexableFieldType.indexed() > ----------------------------------- > > Key: LUCENE-6013 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6013 > Project: Lucene - Core > Issue Type: Improvement > Reporter: Michael McCandless > Assignee: Michael McCandless > Fix For: 5.0, Trunk > > Attachments: LUCENE-6013.patch > > > Like LUCENE-6006, here's another pre-cursor for LUCENE-6005 > ... because I think it's important to nail down Lucene's low-schema > (FieldType/FieldInfos) semantics before adding a high-schema. > IndexableFieldType.indexed() is redundant with > IndexableFieldType.indexOptions() != null, so we should remove it, > codecs shouldn't have to write/read it, high-schema should not configure it, > etc. > Similarly, the FieldInfo.indexed bit is redundant, so I removed it, but I > left the sugar API (FieldInfo.isIndexed) and implement it as just > checking IndexOptions != null. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org