[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3312?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13287267#comment-13287267
]
Andrzej Bialecki commented on LUCENE-3312:
-------------------------------------------
bq. We already have Document and it's going to become confusing with two
different Document classes
+1 to use a better name (LuceneDocument? AbstractDocument?).
bq. I don't think it should hold Indexable/StorableField instances but instead
should just hold Field instances.
With the Field class implementing IndexableField and StorableField, and on
retrieval returning a different class that implements only StorableField? Well,
at least it would allow for expressing the association between consecutive
stored/indexed values that we can express now when creating a Document for
indexing. But the strong decoupling of stored/indexed parts of a field has its
benefits too (arbitrary sequences of stored/indexed parts of fields)... and if
you require a specific implementation at the level of (input) Document then you
prevent users from using their own impls. of strongly decoupled sequences of
StoredField/IndexedField.
bq. I think I remember seing great patch with indexable-storable field (with
serialization and deserialization).
SOLR-1535 .
> Break out StorableField from IndexableField
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3312
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3312
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: core/index
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Assignee: Nikola Tankovic
> Labels: gsoc2012, lucene-gsoc-12
> Fix For: Field Type branch
>
> Attachments: lucene-3312-patch-01.patch, lucene-3312-patch-02.patch,
> lucene-3312-patch-03.patch, lucene-3312-patch-04.patch
>
>
> In the field type branch we have strongly decoupled
> Document/Field/FieldType impl from the indexer, by having only a
> narrow API (IndexableField) passed to IndexWriter. This frees apps up
> use their own "documents" instead of the "user-space" impls we provide
> in oal.document.
> Similarly, with LUCENE-3309, we've done the same thing on the
> doc/field retrieval side (from IndexReader), with the
> StoredFieldsVisitor.
> But, maybe we should break out StorableField from IndexableField,
> such that when you index a doc you provide two Iterables -- one for the
> IndexableFields and one for the StorableFields. Either can be null.
> One downside is possible perf hit for fields that are both indexed &
> stored (ie, we visit them twice, lookup their name in a hash twice,
> etc.). But the upside is a cleaner separation of concerns in API....
--
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
