[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2310?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13010032#comment-13010032
]
Chris Male commented on LUCENE-2310:
------------------------------------
Yes Field would still compile if you removed the extends. However if we empty
AbstractField then any client code that also extends AbstractField would break.
Thats why I deprecate the whole class but leave its code in. We could empty
it and change it to extend Field, I think that would still work.
> Reduce Fieldable, AbstractField and Field complexity
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-2310
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2310
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: Index
> Reporter: Chris Male
> Attachments: LUCENE-2310-Deprecate-AbstractField-CleanField.patch,
> LUCENE-2310-Deprecate-AbstractField.patch,
> LUCENE-2310-Deprecate-AbstractField.patch,
> LUCENE-2310-Deprecate-AbstractField.patch,
> LUCENE-2310-Deprecate-DocumentGetFields-core.patch,
> LUCENE-2310-Deprecate-DocumentGetFields.patch,
> LUCENE-2310-Deprecate-DocumentGetFields.patch, LUCENE-2310.patch
>
>
> In order to move field type like functionality into its own class, we really
> need to try to tackle the hierarchy of Fieldable, AbstractField and Field.
> Currently AbstractField depends on Field, and does not provide much more
> functionality that storing fields, most of which are being moved over to
> FieldType. Therefore it seems ideal to try to deprecate AbstractField (and
> possible Fieldable), moving much of the functionality into Field and
> FieldType.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
