Re: Using different field when overriding computeNorm

2011-02-03 Thread Robert Muir
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Ryan Aylward wrote: > This is great. Is there a target of when 4.0 will be released? > Unfortunately I think its quite a ways away: there are branches for major features such as per-document payloads, realtime search, modern index compression algorithms, and a vari

RE: Using different field when overriding computeNorm

2011-02-03 Thread Ryan Aylward
This is great. Is there a target of when 4.0 will be released? -Original Message- From: Robert Muir [mailto:rcm...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 11:10 AM To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Using different field when overriding computeNorm On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1

Re: Using different field when overriding computeNorm

2011-02-01 Thread Robert Muir
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Ryan Aylward wrote: > I have had to do similar things to other methods of Similarity. In my > example, I wanted to have different behavior for the tf() method for each > field. The tf method does not include a field parameter as an input to it. > The only solutio

RE: Using different field when overriding computeNorm

2011-02-01 Thread Ryan Aylward
I have had to do similar things to other methods of Similarity. In my example, I wanted to have different behavior for the tf() method for each field. The tf method does not include a field parameter as an input to it. The only solution I could come up with was to add a thread local to set the f