[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3307?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13064467#comment-13064467
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-3307:
-------------------------------------
{quote}
Robert, perhaps we should add an explicit test, in core, which ensures we can
pass a null Analyzer to IWC when we index only NOT_ANALYZED and NumericFields?
{quote}
I don't like the idea of any kind of test or documentation that says we
explicitly support null.
Then, suddenly null is an officially supported value for Analyzer and people
start wanting it in other places.
If we must have a test here to proceed, I would instead prefer to cancel as
Won't fix.
> don't require an analyzer, if all fields are NOT_ANALYZED
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3307
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3307
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Robert Muir
> Attachments: LUCENE-3307.patch
>
>
> This seems wierd, if you analyze only NOT_ANALYZED fields, you must have an
> analyzer (null will not work)
> because documentsinverter wants it for things like offsetGap
--
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
