[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4985?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13722381#comment-13722381
]
Shai Erera commented on LUCENE-4985:
------------------------------------
bq. But, I think we should not document that "range facet requests come last"?
Ok I will remove that comment. As soon as we add more accumulators, this
comment is not important anyway.
bq. Maybe we should return Collection not List?
Why? I prefer that we don't change that since that will change tests. Many of
the tests do results.get(idx).
If we don't need to, let's not complicate the users? If an app does pass the
requests in known order, it shouldn't suffer.
It's only Multi that loses order.
> Make it easier to mix different kinds of FacetRequests
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-4985
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4985
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: modules/facet
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Fix For: 5.0, 4.5
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-4985.patch, LUCENE-4985.patch, LUCENE-4985.patch
>
>
> Spinoff from LUCENE-4980, where we added a strange class called
> RangeFacetsAccumulatorWrapper, which takes an incoming FSP, splits out the
> FacetRequests into range and non-range, delegates to two accumulators for
> each set, and then zips the results back together in order.
> Somehow we should generalize this class and make it work with
> SortedSetDocValuesAccumulator as well.
--
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]
