[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5339?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13858276#comment-13858276
]
Shai Erera commented on LUCENE-5339:
------------------------------------
It's just that we have *.facet.taxonomy package, yet many taxonomy related
classes are outside it. I prefer to have a more organized package hierarchy
which groups classes together, than having them in an arbitrary *.facet
package. For instance, the *.facet package alone contains 40 classes, yet the
"suggest" package contains a total of 28 classes, that are divided into logical
packages (*.analyzing, *.fst, *.tst, *.jaspell and *.suggest itself). What's
the benefit of dumping all the classes in one package, when they don't share
any common code? If we have a *.taxonomy, *.sortedset and *.range, you can at
least know where to look for if you want to e.g. facet by taxonomy or
sortedset. I don't know why you think packages are intimidating, they are meant
to organize the code, and help users find related stuff. I did a quick count
and compare:
* Suggest module's packages contain 6 classes under *.analyzing and *.fst
(each), 2 classes under *.jaspell and 3 classes under *.tst.
* Facet module could contain 6 classes under *.range, 3 classes under
*.sortedset and 9 classes under *.taxonomy (besides the ones that are already
there).
The two modules are similar IMO, just like you have several methods for
"suggesting", you have several methods for "faceting"...
> Simplify the facet module APIs
> ------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-5339
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5339
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: modules/facet
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Assignee: Michael McCandless
> Attachments: LUCENE-5339.patch, LUCENE-5339.patch, LUCENE-5339.patch
>
>
> I'd like to explore simplifications to the facet module's APIs: I
> think the current APIs are complex, and the addition of a new feature
> (sparse faceting, LUCENE-5333) threatens to add even more classes
> (e.g., FacetRequestBuilder). I think we can do better.
> So, I've been prototyping some drastic changes; this is very
> early/exploratory and I'm not sure where it'll wind up but I think the
> new approach shows promise.
> The big changes are:
> * Instead of *FacetRequest/Params/Result, you directly instantiate
> the classes that do facet counting (currently TaxonomyFacetCounts,
> RangeFacetCounts or SortedSetDVFacetCounts), passing in the
> SimpleFacetsCollector, and then you interact with those classes to
> pull labels + values (topN under a path, sparse, specific labels).
> * At index time, no more FacetIndexingParams/CategoryListParams;
> instead, you make a new SimpleFacetFields and pass it the field it
> should store facets + drill downs under. If you want more than
> one CLI you create more than one instance of SimpleFacetFields.
> * I added a simple schema, where you state which dimensions are
> hierarchical or multi-valued. From this we decide how to index
> the ordinals (no more OrdinalPolicy).
> Sparse faceting is just another method (getAllDims), on both taxonomy
> & ssdv facet classes.
> I haven't created a common base class / interface for all of the
> search-time facet classes, but I think this may be possible/clean, and
> perhaps useful for drill sideways.
> All the new classes are under oal.facet.simple.*.
> Lots of things that don't work yet: drill sideways, complements,
> associations, sampling, partitions, etc. This is just a start ...
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1.5#6160)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
