On Dec 9, 2009, at 3:52 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote: > On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> On Dec 9, 2009, at 3:47 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote: >>> >>> I thought I defined it well... hmmm. >>> I'll take another stab, outlining using dynamic fields in both >>> scenarios (explicitly defined dynamic fields, and automatically >>> defined as part of the creation of the point class). I think we >>> really do need to get concrete about our options at this point. >> >> Agreed, code would be good. > > I had code (untested) just using dynamic fields... you changed it :-P > But I meant actual fieldType and field definitions, and what fields > get indexed as a result, and how type lookups on those fields happens. >
Fair enough!
