[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1561) Maybe rename Field.omitTf, and strengthen the javadocs
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1561?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12696603#action_12696603 ] Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1561: --- I found a deprecation bug: setOmitTf() and other are only deprecated in the Fieldable interface, but not in the implementations. Code using setOmitTf() does not show a warning. So in AbstractField/Field, the @deprecated should be added, too. And a problem with SOLR: The ChangeLog should clearly say, that the Fieldable interface was again changed. Plugging the new Lucene JAR into Solr fails, because one of the Fieldable implementations of Solr do not have the new methods. Maybe we should remove the rename inside the interfae (keep omitTf there) and only change it in the Field/AbstractField class. This would make jar-replacements possible. As most people will not implement Fieldable, I think it can be left out (as it is only a rename). And generally Interface should not have duplicate method declarations with different names because of deprecation... (that looks very bad) Maybe rename Field.omitTf, and strengthen the javadocs -- Key: LUCENE-1561 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1561 Project: Lucene - Java Issue Type: Improvement Components: Index Affects Versions: 2.4.1 Reporter: Michael McCandless Assignee: Michael McCandless Fix For: 2.9 Attachments: LUCENE-1561.patch Spinoff from here: http://www.nabble.com/search-problem-when-indexed-using-Field.setOmitTf()-td22456141.html Maybe rename omitTf to something like omitTermPositions, and make it clear what queries will silently fail to work as a result. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1561) Maybe rename Field.omitTf, and strengthen the javadocs
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1561?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12696628#action_12696628 ] Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1561: bq. setOmitTf() and other are only deprecated in the Fieldable interface, but not in the implementations. Code using setOmitTf() does not show a warning. So in AbstractField/Field, the @deprecated should be added, too. Urgh, I'll add @deprecated to the methods in AbstractField.java. bq. Maybe we should remove the rename inside the interfae (keep omitTf there) and only change it in the Field/AbstractField class. Darned interface! The problem with this is we use this interface from within Lucene, to access OTFAP, so we'd have to switch those back to deprecated calls, though it does look to be in only a few places. It's also confusing to deprecate it in Fieldable AbstractField but not offer the non-deprecated variant in Fieldable. Since it's possible we won't get the cleanup Fieldable/AbstractField/Field done for 2.9, I'd like in 3.0 to be able to consistently name it in both the Fieldable interface and the AbstractField abstract class. Or are you thinking we'd leave omitTf in Fieldable and then in 3.0 forcefully rename it to omitTermFreqAndPositions? Maybe rename Field.omitTf, and strengthen the javadocs -- Key: LUCENE-1561 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1561 Project: Lucene - Java Issue Type: Improvement Components: Index Affects Versions: 2.4.1 Reporter: Michael McCandless Assignee: Michael McCandless Fix For: 2.9 Attachments: LUCENE-1561.patch Spinoff from here: http://www.nabble.com/search-problem-when-indexed-using-Field.setOmitTf()-td22456141.html Maybe rename omitTf to something like omitTermPositions, and make it clear what queries will silently fail to work as a result. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1561) Maybe rename Field.omitTf, and strengthen the javadocs
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1561?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12696661#action_12696661 ] Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1561: --- Wasn't it the plan to remove these interfaces in 3.0? We could deprecate Fieldable in complete and leave it as it is.From Lucene 3.0 on we only have AbstractField. So the old Fieldable interface must be used internally until 3.0 (with the deprecated methods), but user-land code like Solr should only overwrite AbstractField and not implement the interface anymore (I am not really sure, why Solr needs this Fieldable implementation at all, it the only place in Solr where problems occur, it would be good to reimplement this internal class using AbstractField). Document.add() and all other public appearences of Fieldable should be overloaded with AbstractField counterparts and so on, so that all public API only use the abstract class anymore. But thats my opinion, and maybe is related to the other issue whole document/field reimplementation. Maybe rename Field.omitTf, and strengthen the javadocs -- Key: LUCENE-1561 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1561 Project: Lucene - Java Issue Type: Improvement Components: Index Affects Versions: 2.4.1 Reporter: Michael McCandless Assignee: Michael McCandless Fix For: 2.9 Attachments: LUCENE-1561.patch Spinoff from here: http://www.nabble.com/search-problem-when-indexed-using-Field.setOmitTf()-td22456141.html Maybe rename omitTf to something like omitTermPositions, and make it clear what queries will silently fail to work as a result. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1561) Maybe rename Field.omitTf, and strengthen the javadocs
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1561?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12688385#action_12688385 ] Otis Gospodnetic commented on LUCENE-1561: -- Might be good to keep a consistent name across Lucene/Solr. More info coming up in SOLR-1079. Maybe rename Field.omitTf, and strengthen the javadocs -- Key: LUCENE-1561 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1561 Project: Lucene - Java Issue Type: Improvement Components: Index Affects Versions: 2.4.1 Reporter: Michael McCandless Assignee: Michael McCandless Fix For: 2.9 Attachments: LUCENE-1561.patch Spinoff from here: http://www.nabble.com/search-problem-when-indexed-using-Field.setOmitTf()-td22456141.html Maybe rename omitTf to something like omitTermPositions, and make it clear what queries will silently fail to work as a result. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1561) Maybe rename Field.omitTf, and strengthen the javadocs
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1561?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12688387#action_12688387 ] Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1561: Naming is the hardest part!! Maybe rename Field.omitTf, and strengthen the javadocs -- Key: LUCENE-1561 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1561 Project: Lucene - Java Issue Type: Improvement Components: Index Affects Versions: 2.4.1 Reporter: Michael McCandless Assignee: Michael McCandless Fix For: 2.9 Attachments: LUCENE-1561.patch Spinoff from here: http://www.nabble.com/search-problem-when-indexed-using-Field.setOmitTf()-td22456141.html Maybe rename omitTf to something like omitTermPositions, and make it clear what queries will silently fail to work as a result. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1561) Maybe rename Field.omitTf, and strengthen the javadocs
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1561?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12688429#action_12688429 ] Eks Dev commented on LUCENE-1561: - maybe something along the lines: usePureBooleanPostings() minimalInvertedList() Maybe rename Field.omitTf, and strengthen the javadocs -- Key: LUCENE-1561 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1561 Project: Lucene - Java Issue Type: Improvement Components: Index Affects Versions: 2.4.1 Reporter: Michael McCandless Assignee: Michael McCandless Fix For: 2.9 Attachments: LUCENE-1561.patch Spinoff from here: http://www.nabble.com/search-problem-when-indexed-using-Field.setOmitTf()-td22456141.html Maybe rename omitTf to something like omitTermPositions, and make it clear what queries will silently fail to work as a result. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1561) Maybe rename Field.omitTf, and strengthen the javadocs
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1561?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12688449#action_12688449 ] Mike Klaas commented on LUCENE-1561: I agree that it is going to be almost impossible to convey that phrase queries don't work by renaming the flag. I agree with Eks Dev that a positive formulation is the only chance, although this deviates from the current omit* flags. termPresenceOnly() trackTermPresenceOnly() onlyTermPresence() omitEverythingButTermPresence() // just kidding Maybe rename Field.omitTf, and strengthen the javadocs -- Key: LUCENE-1561 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1561 Project: Lucene - Java Issue Type: Improvement Components: Index Affects Versions: 2.4.1 Reporter: Michael McCandless Assignee: Michael McCandless Fix For: 2.9 Attachments: LUCENE-1561.patch Spinoff from here: http://www.nabble.com/search-problem-when-indexed-using-Field.setOmitTf()-td22456141.html Maybe rename omitTf to something like omitTermPositions, and make it clear what queries will silently fail to work as a result. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
