[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2308?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13093880#comment-13093880 ]
Chris Male commented on LUCENE-2308: ------------------------------------ Much of what has been suggested here I'm looking at incorporating in LUCENE-3312 but perhaps its best to do it in small steps. What I want to do is as follows: - Change FieldType to an interface inside index.* and use it for the source of properties about an IndexableField. It will be simple and immutable and won't enforce any creation techniques. - Add a builder for FieldType to document.* which will create FieldType instances. - Add the syntactic sugar ctors suggested above which would use the builder to instantiate the FieldTypes they need. > Separately specify a field's type > --------------------------------- > > Key: LUCENE-2308 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2308 > Project: Lucene - Java > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: core/index > Reporter: Michael McCandless > Assignee: Michael McCandless > Labels: gsoc2011, lucene-gsoc-11, mentor > Fix For: 4.0 > > Attachments: LUCENE-2308-10.patch, LUCENE-2308-11.patch, > LUCENE-2308-12.patch, LUCENE-2308-13.patch, LUCENE-2308-14.patch, > LUCENE-2308-15.patch, LUCENE-2308-16.patch, LUCENE-2308-17.patch, > LUCENE-2308-18.patch, LUCENE-2308-19.patch, LUCENE-2308-2.patch, > LUCENE-2308-20.patch, LUCENE-2308-21.patch, LUCENE-2308-3.patch, > LUCENE-2308-4.patch, LUCENE-2308-5.patch, LUCENE-2308-6.patch, > LUCENE-2308-7.patch, LUCENE-2308-8.patch, LUCENE-2308-9.patch, > LUCENE-2308-branch.patch, LUCENE-2308-final.patch, LUCENE-2308-ltc.patch, > LUCENE-2308-merge-1.patch, LUCENE-2308-merge-2.patch, > LUCENE-2308-merge-3.patch, LUCENE-2308.branchdiffs, > LUCENE-2308.branchdiffs.moved, LUCENE-2308.patch, LUCENE-2308.patch, > LUCENE-2308.patch, LUCENE-2308.patch, LUCENE-2308.patch > > > This came up from dicussions on IRC. I'm summarizing here... > Today when you make a Field to add to a document you can set things > index or not, stored or not, analyzed or not, details like omitTfAP, > omitNorms, index term vectors (separately controlling > offsets/positions), etc. > I think we should factor these out into a new class (FieldType?). > Then you could re-use this FieldType instance across multiple fields. > The Field instance would still hold the actual value. > We could then do per-field analyzers by adding a setAnalyzer on the > FieldType, instead of the separate PerFieldAnalzyerWrapper (likewise > for per-field codecs (with flex), where we now have > PerFieldCodecWrapper). > This would NOT be a schema! It's just refactoring what we already > specify today. EG it's not serialized into the index. > This has been discussed before, and I know Michael Busch opened a more > ambitious (I think?) issue. I think this is a good first baby step. We could > consider a hierarchy of FIeldType (NumericFieldType, etc.) but maybe hold > off on that for starters... -- 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