[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13166311#comment-13166311
]
Simon Willnauer commented on LUCENE-3622:
-----------------------------------------
bq. And as I said, calling it IndexDocValues doesn't really help the confusion
matter IMO.
a bit of history I hope I recall correctly... we had some arguments when
merging from the docvalues branch into trunk that the name is easy to be
confused with DocValues in the function package since they are both in core.
This is where my statement comes from.
> separate IndexDocValues interface from implementation
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3622
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Robert Muir
> Attachments: LUCENE-3622.patch
>
>
> Currently the o.a.l.index.values contains both the abstract apis and
> Lucene40's current implementation.
> I think we should move the implementation underneath Lucene40Codec, leaving
> only the abstract apis.
> For example, simpletext might have a different implementation, and we might
> make a int8 implementation
> underneath preflexcodec to support norms.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
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
