Yonik Seeley wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Michael McCandless
<luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
Once added, something inside the index (a "write once" schema)
records
that this field is an IntField and then it's an error to ever use a
different type field by that same name.
I dunno... coupling functionality to restrictions seems like it starts
to erode some of Lucene's famous flexibility.
Consider changing the type of a field from an int to a long... a
reasonably smart app or user could delete and re-index documents with
that field (it could be a small subset). Or even keep track of what
documents had an int field vs a long field (via filters or something).
This example is the exception not the rule, though (simple things
should be
simple... complex things should be possible). I think we should make
this case possible, but it need not be simple.
EG one could always still use an untyped field to do expert things.
Whereas we have the reverse today: if I simply want to add a number
field to my docs, and search it by range and sort by it, it's far from
simple.
Mike
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
