[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4101?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13292305#comment-13292305
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-4101:
-------------------------------------
{quote}
Gotcha. I didn't really mind the code dup since it spelled out clearly what the
type definitions were to prevent misreading like I just did, but no biggie.
{quote}
I think I might tend to agree with Chris here: on one hand I like the purity of
just having a .TYPE, on the other hand i think clarity might be worth it,
after all its a tad confusing since e.g. StringField has a parameter asking for
Stored/Unstored, so which one is its .TYPE? (of course the javadocs
document this, but still).
But seeing as this is the "expert" api I don't feel very strongly about this.
More important is that the easy API is fixed here in a way that doesn't require
adding the field twice: I like that.
> Remove XXXField.TYPE_STORED
> ---------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-4101
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4101
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Assignee: Michael McCandless
> Priority: Blocker
> Fix For: 4.0, 5.0
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-4101.patch, LUCENE-4101.patch, LUCENE-4101.patch
>
>
> Spinoff from LUCENE-3312.
> For 4.0 I think we should simplify the sugar field APIs by requiring
> that you add a StoredField if you want to store the field. Expert users
> can still make a custom FieldType that both stores and indexes...
--
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
