[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2294?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12841152#action_12841152
 ] 

Uwe Schindler edited comment on LUCENE-2294 at 3/4/10 10:00 AM:
----------------------------------------------------------------

+1 for the IndexWriterConfig with chaining method calls

We had a discussion about this a while ago on the mailinglist: 
[http://www.lucidimagination.com/search/document/19e1a19f4d340b8c/lucene_2_9_and_deprecated_ir_open_methods]

      was (Author: thetaphi):
    +1 for the IndexWriterConfig with chaining method calls

We had a discussion about this a while ago on the mailinglist: 
[http://www.lucidimagination.com/search/document/d32100d8a7b67366/lucene_2_9_and_deprecated_ir_open_methods#19e1a19f4d340b8c]
  
> Create IndexWriterConfiguration and store all of IW configuration there
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-2294
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2294
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Index
>            Reporter: Shai Erera
>             Fix For: 3.1
>
>
> I would like to factor out of all IW configuration parameters into a single 
> configuration class, which I propose to name IndexWriterConfiguration (or 
> IndexWriterConfig). I want to store there almost everything besides the 
> Directory, and to reduce all the ctors down to one: IndexWriter(Directory, 
> IndexWriterConfiguration). What I was thinking of storing there are the 
> following parameters:
> * All of ctors parameters, except for Directory.
> * The different setters where it makes sense. For example I still think 
> infoStream should be set on IW directly.
> I'm thinking that IWC should expose everything in a setter/getter methods, 
> and defaults to whatever IW defaults today. Except for Analyzer which will 
> need to be defined in the ctor of IWC and won't have a setter.
> I am not sure why MaxFieldLength is required in all IW ctors, yet IW declares 
> a DEFAULT (which is an int and not MaxFieldLength). Do we still think that 
> 10000 should be the default? Why not default to UNLIMITED and otherwise let 
> the application decide what LIMITED means for it? I would like to make MFL 
> optional on IWC and default to something, and I hope that default will be 
> UNLIMITED. We can document that on IWC, so that if anyone chooses to move to 
> the new API, he should be aware of that ...
> I plan to deprecate all the ctors and getters/setters and replace them by:
> * One ctor as described above
> * getIndexWriterConfiguration, or simply getConfig, which can then be queried 
> for the setting of interest.
> * About the setters, I think maybe we can just introduce a setConfig method 
> which will override everything that is overridable today, except for 
> Analyzer. So someone could do iw.getConfig().setSomething(); 
> iw.setConfig(newConfig);
> ** The setters on IWC can return an IWC to allow chaining set calls ... so 
> the above will turn into 
> iw.setConfig(iw.getConfig().setSomething1().setSomething2()); 
> BTW, this is needed for Parallel Indexing (see LUCENE-1879), but I think it 
> will greatly simplify IW's API.
> I'll start to work on a patch.

-- 
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