[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-831?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12700586#action_12700586
 ] 

Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-831:
------------------------------------

bq. but maybe the new ValueSource could provide both ways to access

Yeah, this goes with with what Mike pointed out above - we can return arrays, 
objects, or anything and your grandmother. My main worry with that idea is the 
ValueSource API - it could have 10's of accessors, but only 1 or 2 are 
generally implemented and you have to know the right one to call - it could 
work of course, but on first thought, its fairly ugly. You could make a fair 
point that we are already a ways down that path with the design we already have 
I guess though.

bq. So, maybe there is a possibility to merge both approaches and only provide 
one ValueSource supplying both access strategies. 

Its a good point. Something makes me think we will still be a bit hindered by 
back compat with deletes, norms though.

> Complete overhaul of FieldCache API/Implementation
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-831
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-831
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Search
>            Reporter: Hoss Man
>            Assignee: Mark Miller
>             Fix For: 3.0
>
>         Attachments: ExtendedDocument.java, fieldcache-overhaul.032208.diff, 
> fieldcache-overhaul.diff, fieldcache-overhaul.diff, 
> LUCENE-831-trieimpl.patch, LUCENE-831.03.28.2008.diff, 
> LUCENE-831.03.30.2008.diff, LUCENE-831.03.31.2008.diff, LUCENE-831.patch, 
> LUCENE-831.patch, LUCENE-831.patch, LUCENE-831.patch, LUCENE-831.patch, 
> LUCENE-831.patch, LUCENE-831.patch, LUCENE-831.patch, LUCENE-831.patch, 
> LUCENE-831.patch, LUCENE-831.patch, LUCENE-831.patch, LUCENE-831.patch, 
> LUCENE-831.patch
>
>
> Motivation:
> 1) Complete overhaul the API/implementation of "FieldCache" type things...
>     a) eliminate global static map keyed on IndexReader (thus
>         eliminating synch block between completley independent IndexReaders)
>     b) allow more customization of cache management (ie: use 
>         expiration/replacement strategies, disk backed caches, etc)
>     c) allow people to define custom cache data logic (ie: custom
>         parsers, complex datatypes, etc... anything tied to a reader)
>     d) allow people to inspect what's in a cache (list of CacheKeys) for
>         an IndexReader so a new IndexReader can be likewise warmed. 
>     e) Lend support for smarter cache management if/when
>         IndexReader.reopen is added (merging of cached data from subReaders).
> 2) Provide backwards compatibility to support existing FieldCache API with
>     the new implementation, so there is no redundent caching as client code
>     migrades to new API.

-- 
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: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Reply via email to