Doug, Would you mind if some pieces of your reply end up in the javadocs?
Regards, Paul Elschot. On Monday 21 February 2005 18:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· > RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT > <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31841>. > ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· > INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. > > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31841 > > > > > > ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-21 18:49 ------- > This looks good. Thanks! > > A few comments: > > Orignally there was no Weight in Lucene, only Query and Scorer. Weight was > added in order to make it so that searching did not modify a Query, so that a > Query instance could be reused. Searcher-dependent state of the query is meant > to reside in the Weight. IndexReader dependent state resides in the Scorer. > Your "freezing" a query violates this. Can't we create the weight once in > Searcher.search? > > CachedDfSource does not need to be public does it? > > We need to think about back-compatibliity. Folks have implementations of Query, > Weight, Similarity and Scorer. So, when a public API changes we need to > deprecate, not remove, old methods, and try hard to make the old version still > work. So, for example, we need to figure out how to handle the case where folks > have implemented the old Similarity.idf() methods. > > You no longer call Query.getSimilarity(Searcher). That method permits queries > to override the Searcher's Similarity implementation. Is there a reason you do > this? We should be computing DFs once for the whole query tree, but it should > still be possible to compute, e.g., IDFs independently per node, no? > > I also wonder if, instead of adding DocFreqSource we could instead still use the > Searcher. MultiSearcher could keep an LRU cache of total doc freqs, implemented > with LinkedHashMap, for the last few thousand search terms. That would be a far > less invasive change, and hence less likely to break folks. Or am I missing > something? > > Sorry if I seem picky, but this is core stuff in Lucene and affects a lot of people. > > -- > Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email > ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- > You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]