[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1058?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12546891
]
Grant Ingersoll commented on LUCENE-1058:
-----------------------------------------
{quote}
Why not? Seems more flexible, and this is an expert level API.
{quote}
Then we should document that they must call reset before calling next(), right?
Same could go for the add() method.
> New Analyzer for buffering tokens
> ---------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1058
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1058
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Analysis
> Reporter: Grant Ingersoll
> Assignee: Grant Ingersoll
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 2.3
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1058.patch, LUCENE-1058.patch, LUCENE-1058.patch,
> LUCENE-1058.patch, LUCENE-1058.patch, LUCENE-1058.patch, LUCENE-1058.patch
>
>
> In some cases, it would be handy to have Analyzer/Tokenizer/TokenFilters that
> could siphon off certain tokens and store them in a buffer to be used later
> in the processing pipeline.
> For example, if you want to have two fields, one lowercased and one not, but
> all the other analysis is the same, then you could save off the tokens to be
> output for a different field.
> Patch to follow, but I am still not sure about a couple of things, mostly how
> it plays with the new reuse API.
> See
> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/lucene/java-dev/54397?search_string=BufferingAnalyzer;#54397
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
