So do you think it is a good addition/change to the current api now? -John
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com>wrote: > On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 4:58 PM, John Wang <john.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I fail to see the difference of exposing the api to allow for a Query > > instance to be passed in vs a DocIdSet. > > I was commenting specifically on your idea to allow deletion by int[] > (docids) on the IndexWriter. > > DocIdSet is a different issue - it didn't exist when the conversation > to add deleteByQuery was going on. > > -Yonik > http://www.lucidimagination.com > > > In this specific case, Query is > > essentially a factory to produce a DocIdSetIterator (or Scorer) Isn't it > > what DocIdSet is? > > Thanks > > > > -John > > > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Yonik Seeley > > <yo...@lucidimagination.com>wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 3:41 PM, John Wang <john.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Also, can we expose IndexWriter.deleteDocuments(int[] docids)? > >> > >> Exposing internal ids from the IndexWriter may not be a good idea > >> given that they are transient. > >> > >> > >> -Yonik > >> http://www.lucidimagination.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
