[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1422?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12641567#action_12641567
]
Michael Busch commented on LUCENE-1422:
---------------------------------------
{quote}
I think that's the right approach!
{quote}
OK done. :) Works great...
Another question. Currently the members in Token, like positionIncrement are
deprecated with a comment that they will be made private. We should be able to
do so in the next release, i. e. 2.9, right? It's not a public or protected
API, so there shouldn't be the need to wait for 3.0 based on our
backwards-compatibility policy. Or did I miss a discussion behind this, maybe
because Token is a class that many people extend in the o.a.l.a package and we
agreed to make an exception here?
The reason why I'm asking is Grant's suggestion of putting all default
Attributes into Token and having methods like getPositionIncrement() return the
value from the corresponding PositionIncrementAttribute. It won't be possible
to do that if I can't remove those mentioned members, unless I subclass Token
or with a performance hit, if I do something like this for example:
{code:java}
public int getPositionIncrement() {
if (this.positionIncrementAttribute != null) {
return this.positionIncrementAttribute.getPositionIncrement();
else {
return this.positionIncrement;
}
}
{code}
Seems inefficient and messy.
So my question is if it's ok if I remove the deprecated members with this patch
in the 2.9 release? Thoughts?
> New TokenStream API
> -------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1422
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1422
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Analysis
> Reporter: Michael Busch
> Assignee: Michael Busch
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: lucene-1422.patch, lucene-1422.take2.patch,
> lucene-1422.take3.patch, lucene-1422.take3.patch
>
>
> This is a very early version of the new TokenStream API that
> we started to discuss here:
> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/lucene/java-dev/66227
> This implementation is a bit different from what I initially
> proposed in the thread above. I introduced a new class called
> AttributedToken, which contains the same termBuffer logic
> from Token. In addition it has a lazily-initialized map of
> Class<? extends Attribute> -> Attribute. Attribute is also a
> new class in a new package, plus several implementations like
> PositionIncrementAttribute, PayloadAttribute, etc.
> Similar to my initial proposal is the prototypeToken() method
> which the consumer (e. g. DocumentsWriter) needs to call.
> The token is created by the tokenizer at the end of the chain
> and pushed through all filters to the end consumer. The
> tokenizer and also all filters can add Attributes to the
> token and can keep references to the actual types of the
> attributes that they need to read of modify. This way, when
> boolean nextToken() is called, no casting is necessary.
> I added a class called TestNewTokenStreamAPI which is not
> really a test case yet, but has a static demo() method, which
> demonstrates how to use the new API.
> The reason to not merge Token and TokenStream into one class
> is that we might have caching (or tee/sink) filters in the
> chain that might want to store cloned copies of the tokens
> in a cache. I added a new class NewCachingTokenStream that
> shows how such a class could work. I also implemented a deep
> clone method in AttributedToken and a
> copyFrom(AttributedToken) method, which is needed for the
> caching. Both methods have to iterate over the list of
> attributes. The Attribute subclasses itself also have a
> copyFrom(Attribute) method, which unfortunately has to down-
> cast to the actual type. I first thought that might be very
> inefficient, but it's not so bad. Well, if you add all
> Attributes to the AttributedToken that our old Token class
> had (like offsets, payload, posIncr), then the performance
> of the caching is somewhat slower (~40%). However, if you
> add less attributes, because not all might be needed, then
> the performance is even slightly faster than with the old API.
> Also the new API is flexible enough so that someone could
> implement a custom caching filter that knows all attributes
> the token can have, then the caching should be just as
> fast as with the old API.
> This patch is not nearly ready, there are lot's of things
> missing:
> - unit tests
> - change DocumentsWriter to use new API
> (in backwards-compatible fashion)
> - patch is currently java 1.5; need to change before
> commiting to 2.9
> - all TokenStreams and -Filters should be changed to use
> new API
> - javadocs incorrect or missing
> - hashcode and equals methods missing in Attributes and
> AttributedToken
>
> I wanted to submit it already for brave people to give me
> early feedback before I spend more time working on this.
--
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]
