[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2310?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12851829#action_12851829
]
Shai Erera commented on LUCENE-2310:
------------------------------------
+1 for this simplification. Can we just name it Indexable, and omit Document
from it? That way, it's both shorter and less chances for users to directly
link it w/ Document.
One thing I didn't understand though, is what will happen to ir/is.doc()
method? Will those be deprecated in favor of some other class which receives an
IR as parameter and knows how to re-construct Indexable(Document)?
> Reduce Fieldable, AbstractField and Field complexity
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-2310
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2310
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: Index
> Reporter: Chris Male
> Attachments: LUCENE-2310-Deprecate-AbstractField-CleanField.patch,
> LUCENE-2310-Deprecate-AbstractField.patch,
> LUCENE-2310-Deprecate-AbstractField.patch,
> LUCENE-2310-Deprecate-AbstractField.patch,
> LUCENE-2310-Deprecate-DocumentGetFields-core.patch,
> LUCENE-2310-Deprecate-DocumentGetFields.patch,
> LUCENE-2310-Deprecate-DocumentGetFields.patch
>
>
> In order to move field type like functionality into its own class, we really
> need to try to tackle the hierarchy of Fieldable, AbstractField and Field.
> Currently AbstractField depends on Field, and does not provide much more
> functionality that storing fields, most of which are being moved over to
> FieldType. Therefore it seems ideal to try to deprecate AbstractField (and
> possible Fieldable), moving much of the functionality into Field and
> FieldType.
--
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]
