[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2308?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12844688#action_12844688
]
Marvin Humphrey commented on LUCENE-2308:
-----------------------------------------
> Also creating a FieldType with args like
> new FieldType(true, false, false) isn't really readable.
Agreed Another option would be a "flags" integer and bitwise constants:
{code}
FieldType type = new FieldType(analyzer, FieldType.INDEXED | FieldType.STORED);
{code}
> It would be nice if we could do something similar to IndexWriterConfig
> (LUCENE-2294), where you use incremental ctor/setters to set up the
> configuration but then once it's used ("bound" to a Field), it's
> immutable.
I bet that'll be more popular than flags, but I thought it was worth
bringing it up anyway. :)
> Separately specify a field's type
> ---------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-2308
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2308
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Index
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
>
> This came up from dicussions on IRC. I'm summarizing here...
> Today when you make a Field to add to a document you can set things
> index or not, stored or not, analyzed or not, details like omitTfAP,
> omitNorms, index term vectors (separately controlling
> offsets/positions), etc.
> I think we should factor these out into a new class (FieldType?).
> Then you could re-use this FieldType instance across multiple fields.
> The Field instance would still hold the actual value.
> We could then do per-field analyzers by adding a setAnalyzer on the
> FieldType, instead of the separate PerFieldAnalzyerWrapper (likewise
> for per-field codecs (with flex), where we now have
> PerFieldCodecWrapper).
> This would NOT be a schema! It's just refactoring what we already
> specify today. EG it's not serialized into the index.
> This has been discussed before, and I know Michael Busch opened a more
> ambitious (I think?) issue. I think this is a good first baby step. We could
> consider a hierarchy of FIeldType (NumericFieldType, etc.) but maybe hold
> off on that for starters...
--
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]
