On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 12:06 AM, Marvin Humphrey <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 06:19:09PM -0400, Michael McCandless wrote: > >> > Analyzer: maybe not so much because the analysis method would be >> > non-trivial. >> > (Assuming that we settle on something like the KS "Inversion"-style >> > Analyzers >> > rather than the method-call-orgy of Lucene TokenStream.) >> >> What's an inversion style analyzer? > > Sorry, that wasn't a good way of putting it. KS passes around Tokens as > arrays rather than as iterators; Inversion is the class that holds Tokens, and > it actually descends from VArray. > > It's hard to write an Analyzer in pure Perl that operates on multiple tokens > and isn't a sloth. Because of method call overhead, having to call next() > for every token makes that even harder.
Ahh, OK. >> OK, I'm convinced... it seems like we should stick with your approach >> (make & cache host wrapper when requested or RC becomes 2). > > Thanks to you and Peter for driving the discussion towards an improved version > of that model. It's been great fun :) Lucy looks to have a great infrastructure design. Mike
