Again - random opinion from left field - I've used guice and I like it
a lot. Really cool stuff and I actually prefer it to Spring for
injection. But still for some reason I'd hate to see Lucene start
resembling anything in Guice.
I'm not even taking the time to make arguments, so I don't expect
these comments to have much weight (they don't by definition) - but
just putting my opinion out there.
- Mark
http://www.lucidimagination.com (mobile)
On Oct 2, 2009, at 10:10 PM, Earwin Burrfoot <ear...@gmail.com> wrote:
Though what about required settings? EG IW's builder must have
Directory, Analyzer. Would we pass these as up-front args to the
initial builder?
I'd try to keep required settings at minimum. The only one absolutely
required, imho, is a Directory, and it's best to specify it in
create() method, so you could set all your IW parameters and then
build several instances, for different Directories for example.
If you decide to add more required settings, we're back to square one
- after a couple of years we're looking at 14 builder() methods.
Okay, there is a way. Take a look at how Guice handles binding
declarations in Modules - different builder methods may return
different interfaces implemented by 'this'.
class IndexWriter {
public static NoAnalyzerYetBuilder builder() { return new
HiddenTrueBuilder(); }
interface NoAnalyzerYetBuilder {
NoAnalyzerYetBuilder setRAMBuffer(...)
NoAnalyzerYetBuilder setUseCompound(...)
....
Builder setAnalyzer(Analyzer)
}
interface Builder extends NoAnalyzerYetBuilder {
Builder setRAMBuffer(...)
Builder setUseCompound (...)
....
IndexWriter create(Directory)
}
private static class HiddenTrueBuilder implements Builder {
}
....
}
This approach looks nice from client-side, but is a mess to implement.
And shouldn't we still specify the version up-front so we can improve
defaults over time without breaking back-compat? (Else, how can
we change defaults?)
EG:
IndexWriter.builder(Version.29, dir, analyzer)
.setRAMBufferSizeMB(128)
.setUseCompoundFile(false)
...
.create()
?
It's probably okay to specify version upfront. But also, nothing bad
happens if we do it like:
IndexWriter.builder().
defaultsFor(Version.29).
setRam...........
Mike
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Earwin Burrfoot <ear...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 03:29, Uwe Schindler <u...@thetaphi.de> wrote:
It is also probably a good idea to move various settings methods
from
IW to that builder and have IW immutable in regards to
configuration.
I'm speaking of the likes of setWriteLockTimeout,
setRAMBufferSizeMB,
setMergePolicy, setMergeScheduler, setSimilarity.
IndexWriter.Builder iwb = IndexWriter.builder().
writeLockTimeout(0).
RAMBufferSize(config.indexationBufferMB).
maxBufferedDocs(...).
similarity(...).
analyzer(...);
... = iwb.build(dir1);
... = iwb.build(dir2);
A happy user of google-collections API :-) These builders are
really cool!
I feel myself caught in the act.
There is still a couple of things bothering me.
1. Introducing a builder, we'll have a whole heap of deprecated
constructors that will hang there for eternity. And then users will
scream in frustration - This class has 14(!) constructors and all of
them are deprecated! How on earth am I supposed to create this
thing?
2. If someone creates IW with some reflectish javabeanish tools -
he's
busted. Not that I'm feeling compassionate for such a person.
I like Earwin's version more. A builder is very flexible, because
you can
concat all your properties (like StringBuilder works with its
append method
returning itself) and create the instance at the end.
Besides (arguably) cleaner syntax, the lack of which is (arguably) a
curse of many Java libraries,
it also allows us to return a different concrete implementation of
IW
without breaking back-compat,
and also to choose this concrete implementation based on settings
provided. If we feel like doing it at some point.
--
Kirill Zakharenko/Кирилл Захаренко (ear...@gmail.com)
Home / Mobile: +7 (495) 683-567-4 / +7 (903) 5-888-423
ICQ: 104465785
---
------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
--
Kirill Zakharenko/Кирилл Захаренко (ear...@gmail.com)
Home / Mobile: +7 (495) 683-567-4 / +7 (903) 5-888-423
ICQ: 104465785
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
