[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3312?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13445669#comment-13445669
]
Uwe Schindler edited comment on LUCENE-3312 at 8/31/12 4:14 PM:
----------------------------------------------------------------
bq. and some of my javadocs warnings on DocumentStoredFieldVisitor in trunk,
sorry that was only this one, I did it because at the time of merging the fact
that it still implements IndexableField was not in my mind. But this is the
same issue like Chris complained about. We should cover that in a second step.
Robert can you commit your javadoc comments back in or should I do it?
was (Author: thetaphi):
bq. and some of my javadocs warnings on DocumentStoredFieldVisitor in trunk,
sorry that was only this one, I did it because at the time of merging the fact
that it still implements IndexableField. But this is the same issue like Chris
complained about. We should cover that in a second step.
Robert can you commit your javadoc comments back in or should I do it?
> Break out StorableField from IndexableField
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3312
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3312
> Project: Lucene - Core
> 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-DocumentIterators-uwe.patch,
> lucene-3312-patch-01.patch, lucene-3312-patch-02.patch,
> lucene-3312-patch-03.patch, lucene-3312-patch-04.patch,
> lucene-3312-patch-05.patch, lucene-3312-patch-06.patch,
> lucene-3312-patch-07.patch, lucene-3312-patch-08.patch,
> lucene-3312-patch-09.patch, lucene-3312-patch-10.patch,
> lucene-3312-patch-11.patch, lucene-3312-patch-12a.patch,
> lucene-3312-patch-12.patch, lucene-3312-patch-13.patch,
> lucene-3312-patch-14.patch, LUCENE-3312-reintegration.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
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
