:
: As 2.1 is soon coming, I wonder if NewIndexModifier is a proper name for
: the public API.
: (It would be the first NewXYZ and there is no OldXYZ either...)
:
: How about renaming it to something like DeletingIndexWriter?
I haven't been following the Jira issue that closely (LUCENE-565), but a
Maybe IndexMaintainer or IndexUpdater ?
On Feb 8, 2007, at 2:59 AM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
:
: As 2.1 is soon coming, I wonder if NewIndexModifier is a proper
name for
: the public API.
: (It would be the first NewXYZ and there is no OldXYZ either...)
:
: How about renaming it to something l
i want the document object of the result of the search in form of
resultset so that i could use it in my application please suggest
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ask you question on the user list
On Feb 8, 2007, at 3:18 AM, Gaurav Srivastava wrote:
i want the document object of the result of the search in form of
resultset so that i could use it in my application please suggest
-
To
I like the name BufferedDeletingIndexWriter best so far.
Chris Hostetter wrote:
> from an API standpoint, it seems like this could easily replace the
> current IndexModifier (which would have the nice side effect of
> resolving the issue of wether the name NewIndexModifier is good
> enough) as
It's a temporary name, no? In the end we probably want to keep the _name_
IndexWriter, so why not just it IndexWriter2 and when we are happy with it, we
make it be the new IndexWriter and we deprecate IW2.
Otis
- Original Message
From: robert engels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: java-dev@lu
Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
> It's a temporary name, no? In the end we probably want to keep the
> _name_ IndexWriter, so why not just it IndexWriter2 and when we are
> happy with it, we make it be the new IndexWriter and we deprecate IW2.
For a temporary solution it seems good. But do you also mean
: It's a temporary name, no? In the end we probably want to keep the
: _name_ IndexWriter, so why not just it IndexWriter2 and when we are
: happy with it, we make it be the new IndexWriter and we deprecate IW2.
Um... actually that's a really good point, this is first and formost an
extension of
Chris Hostetter wrote:
: It's a temporary name, no? In the end we probably want to keep the
: _name_ IndexWriter, so why not just it IndexWriter2 and when we are
: happy with it, we make it be the new IndexWriter and we deprecate IW2.
Um... actually that's a really good point, this is first and
Doron Cohen wrote:
Michael McCandless wrote:
Long-ish term I think we should aim for one reader class (IndexReader)
that you use to do read-only things and one writer class
(NewIndexModifier being closest to this now) to make changes (adds,
deletes, optimize, etc.) to an index.
This sounds g
On 2/8/07, Michael McCandless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think the new methods in NewIndexModifier are low-risk to the
existing IndexWriter, so, we should just add them into IndexWriter and
not create a new class? Then we don't have a naming problem anymore :)
The original versions of that p
: The original versions of that patches have been removed, but I was
: originally concerned about overhead to the IndexWriter for people who
: didn't use that delete functionallity (opening readers, keeping track
: of the segment number for adds, etc).
do you still have those concerns with the ve
Yonik Seeley wrote:
> Also, I think the extension points are important since
> NewIndexModifier does not (and probably never will be able to) do
> everything people need.
I agree extensions points are nice. Maybe we could leave the
extension points ("doAfterFlushRamSegments", etc.) but merge
Ne
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-762?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Grant Ingersoll resolved LUCENE-762.
Resolution: Fixed
I have committed the original patch. All tests pass. In the end, I coul
14 matches
Mail list logo
