Or ... split the two notions apart so that you have Field.Index.
[UN_]ANALYZED and, separately, Field.Index.[NO_]NORMS which could then
be combined together in all 4 combinations (we'd have to fix the
Parameter class to let you build up a new Parameter by combining
existing ones...).
I think naming things well is just as important as good javadocs
explaining things.
But: I think these changes should probably wait until we work out how
to refactor AbstractField/Fieldable/Field?
Mike
Daniel Naber wrote:
On Mittwoch, 27. August 2008, Michael McCandless wrote:
Probably we should rename it to Field.Index.UN_TOKENiZED_NO_NORMS?
I think it's enough if the api doc explains it, no need to rename it.
What's more confusing is that (UN_)TOKENIZED should actually be called
(UN_)ANALYZED IMHO.
Regards
Daniel
--
http://www.danielnaber.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
