OK Hoss.
I agree with you.
Regards,
Daniel
On 26/6/07 19:14, "Chris Hostetter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : conversion tool... Other is to define a "version" on the config and
> : depending on the version, the expected structure will be different.
>
> FYI: schema.xml does have this ... i
: conversion tool... Other is to define a "version" on the config and
: depending on the version, the expected structure will be different.
FYI: schema.xml does have this ... it's one of hte ,schema> attributes.
we've only ever reved it once when multiValue fields were added because we
wanted to
Hi Hoss.
Yes, it's the tricky part when re-structuring configs...
One possible solution is, when you create a new schema, you offer a
conversion tool... Other is to define a "version" on the config and
depending on the version, the expected structure will be different.
I'm sure you know this all
:
:
: I think this way, the config terms are a bit clearer... What do you think?
in general, do i think it would be better if the and
declarations used "factory" as the attribute instead of "class"? ...yes.
So i think it makes sense to change this now? ... i don't know.
the backward compatib
Or
I think this way, the config terms are a bit clearer... What do you think?
Regards,
Daniel
On 22/6/07 20:45, "Chris Hostetter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : What would be the best way to not hide their use?
> :
> :
>
> How about just...
>
>
>
>
>
> -Hoss
>
http://www.bbc.co.
: What would be the best way to not hide their use?
:
:
How about just...
-Hoss
On 21-Jun-07, at 10:22 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
like i said though: i'm in favore of factories like this ... i just
don't
think we should do anything to hide their use and make refering to
Tokenizer or TOkenFilter class names directly use reflection magicly.
What would be the best way to
: Sorry I've confused things a bit... The thread safeness have to be
: considered only on the Tokenizers, not on the factories. So are the
: Tokenizers thread safe?
nope ... they are constructed using Readers and mainting state about the
text they are processing ... the only api is a "next()" met
Thanks, otis, I didn't know CJK is only used for Asian language. I'll try the
German Analyzer.
-Original Message-
From: Otis Gospodnetic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 3:18 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: add CJKTokenizer to solr
I&#x
ene.apache.org
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 12:43:50 PM
Subject: Re: add CJKTokenizer to solr
Sorry I've confused things a bit... The thread safeness have to be
considered only on the Tokenizers, not on the factories. So are the
Tokenizers thread safe?
Regards,
Daniel
On 22/6/07 11:36, "
Sorry I've confused things a bit... The thread safeness have to be
considered only on the Tokenizers, not on the factories. So are the
Tokenizers thread safe?
Regards,
Daniel
On 22/6/07 11:36, "Daniel Alheiros" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Hoss.
>
> I've done a few tests using reflection to
Hi Hoss.
I've done a few tests using reflection to instantiate a simple object and
the results will vary a lot depending on the JVM. As the JVM optimizes code
as it is executed it will vary depending on the usage, but I think we have
something to consider:
If done 1,000 samples (5 clean X loop of
Simpy -- http://www.simpy.com/ - Tag - Search - Share
- Original Message
From: Xuesong Luo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 8:54:37 AM
Subject: RE: add CJKTokenizer to solr
Thanks, Toru and Chris,
I tried both the CJKTokenizer and
ubject: Re: add CJKTokenizer to solr
I'm sorry. Because it was not possible to append it,
it sends it again.
> > I got the error below after adding CJKTokenizer to schema.xml. I
> > checked the constructor of CJKTokenizer, it requires a Reader parameter,
> > I guess that's
: Regarding reflection - even if reflection is slower, and I'm sure it is,
: I just don't know exactly how much slower it is, couldn't we cache the
: instantiated instances keyed off by name? Such instances would have to
: be thread-safe, but I imagine most/all Tokenizers already are
: thread-saf
to
JIRA.
Otis
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Simpy -- http://www.simpy.com/ - Tag - Search - Share
- Original Message
From: Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 9:39:20 PM
Subject: Re: add CJKTokenizer to solr
: Why instead of that we don't create an UbberFactory that takes the Tokenizer
: class as a parameter and instantiates the proper Tokenizer?
The idea has come up before ... and there's really no reason why it
wouldn't be okay to include a reflection based facotry like this in Solr
-- it just hasn
Hi
Well, creating a Factory for each new Tokenizer we want to add means you are
replicating the same code again and again just to bind the Factory (Solr
interface) to the Tokenizer (Lucene interface).
Why instead of that we don't create an UbberFactory that takes the Tokenizer
class as a paramete
On 18-Jun-07, at 10:28 PM, Toru Matsuzawa wrote:
I'm sorry. Because it was not possible to append it,
it sends it again.
I got the error below after adding CJKTokenizer to schema.xml. I
checked the constructor of CJKTokenizer, it requires a Reader
parameter,
I guess that's why I get this e
I'm sorry. Because it was not possible to append it,
it sends it again.
> > I got the error below after adding CJKTokenizer to schema.xml. I
> > checked the constructor of CJKTokenizer, it requires a Reader parameter,
> > I guess that's why I get this error, I searched the email archive, it
> >
> I got the error below after adding CJKTokenizer to schema.xml. I
> checked the constructor of CJKTokenizer, it requires a Reader parameter,
> I guess that's why I get this error, I searched the email archive, it
> seems working for other users. Does anyone know what is the problem?
CJKTokenize
: I got the error below after adding CJKTokenizer to schema.xml. I
: checked the constructor of CJKTokenizer, it requires a Reader parameter,
: I guess that's why I get this error, I searched the email archive, it
: seems working for other users. Does anyone know what is the problem?
You can use
Hi,
I got the error below after adding CJKTokenizer to schema.xml. I
checked the constructor of CJKTokenizer, it requires a Reader parameter,
I guess that's why I get this error, I searched the email archive, it
seems working for other users. Does anyone know what is the problem?
Thanks
Xue
Thank you all, it's works now:).
2007/1/30, James liu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
he now is ok.
--
regards
jl
he now is ok.
--
regards
jl
hoss++
On Jan 29, 2007, at 3:43 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
: >I realized that solr do not have the CJK package ,but how can I
: > add it
: > in?
:
: You need to add the analyzers JAR from Lucene's contrib area to your
: Solr application, under WEB-INF/lib. You can get that JAR from the
:
: >I realized that solr do not have the CJK package ,but how can I
: > add it
: > in?
:
: You need to add the analyzers JAR from Lucene's contrib area to your
: Solr application, under WEB-INF/lib. You can get that JAR from the
: latest Lucene release distribution.
it's acctually eazier then
On Jan 29, 2007, at 1:08 AM, zha jimmy wrote:
hi, all
I am try to config solr to support chinese tokenize。
I saw the tips in schema.xml:
Then I modified schema.xml
positionIncrementGap="100">
class="org.apache.lucene.analysis.cjk.CJKTokenizer "/>
hi, all
I am try to config solr to support chinese tokenize。
I saw the tips in schema.xml:
Then I modified schema.xml
:
When I start the solr there is some error Caused by:
java.lang.ClassNotFoundException:
org.apache.lucene.analysis.cjk.CJ
29 matches
Mail list logo
