[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-3576?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14994301#comment-14994301
]
Julian Sedding commented on OAK-3576:
-------------------------------------
[~catholicon], {{IndexDescription}} is intended to provide access to the data
of the index definition. I.e. it is an API agnostic representation of the data
of the NodeState that defines the index, e.g. {{/oak:index/someLuceneIndex}}.
So yes, we absolutely should have some configuration in the index definition.
Each {{IndexableFieldProvider}} could do a simple lookup on the
{{IndexDescription}}, e.g.
{{IndexDescription.getWithDefault("specialFeatureEnabled", false)}} to decide
whether it provides any fields. However, it can also use additional properties
to vary its behaviour, i.e. it becomes configurable.
Of course we could enforce that each {{IndexableFieldProvider}} is registered
with a property name, and then we could externally prevent it from being called
if that property is not present or not set to true. However, I think a provider
should still have access to the full index definition to make its behaviour
configurable.
> Allow custom extension to augment indexed lucene documents
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OAK-3576
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-3576
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: lucene
> Reporter: Vikas Saurabh
> Attachments: OAK-3576.jsedding.patch, OAK-3576.wip.patch
>
>
> Following up on http://oak.markmail.org/thread/a53ahsgb3bowtwyq, we should
> have an extension point in oak to allow custom code to add fields to
> documents getting indexed in lucene. We'd also need to allow extension point
> to add extra query terms to utilize such augmented fields.
> (cc [~teofili], [~chetanm])
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
