[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13166296#comment-13166296
]
Uwe Schindler edited comment on LUCENE-3622 at 12/9/11 4:46 PM:
----------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with Robert and Simon, we should have simpliest name (DocValues). The
function stuff is in my opinion already named wrongly, I hate e.g. ValueSource,
this name should die, die, die - and this one creates confusion everywhere :-)
was (Author: thetaphi):
I agree with Robert and Simon, we should have simpliest name (DocValues).
The function stuff is in my opinion already named, wrong, I hate e.g.
ValueSource, this name should die, die, die - and this one creates confusion
everywhere :-)
> separate IndexDocValues interface from implementation
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3622
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Robert Muir
> Attachments: LUCENE-3622.patch
>
>
> Currently the o.a.l.index.values contains both the abstract apis and
> Lucene40's current implementation.
> I think we should move the implementation underneath Lucene40Codec, leaving
> only the abstract apis.
> For example, simpletext might have a different implementation, and we might
> make a int8 implementation
> underneath preflexcodec to support norms.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
