[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6013?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14177446#comment-14177446
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-6013:
-------------------------------------
+1
We may want to followup with some modification of the name "indexOptions". It
would be nice in the future to maybe just call it 'indexed', just have e.g.
setIndexed(DOCS_ONLY) or whatever. But we should remove the boolean here first!
> Remove IndexableFieldType.indexed()
> -----------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-6013
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6013
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Assignee: Michael McCandless
> Fix For: 5.0, Trunk
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-6013.patch, LUCENE-6013.patch, LUCENE-6013.patch,
> LUCENE-6013.patch
>
>
> Like LUCENE-6006, here's another pre-cursor for LUCENE-6005
> ... because I think it's important to nail down Lucene's low-schema
> (FieldType/FieldInfos) semantics before adding a high-schema.
> IndexableFieldType.indexed() is redundant with
> IndexableFieldType.indexOptions() != null, so we should remove it,
> codecs shouldn't have to write/read it, high-schema should not configure it,
> etc.
> Similarly, the FieldInfo.indexed bit is redundant, so I removed it, but I
> left the sugar API (FieldInfo.isIndexed) and implement it as just
> checking IndexOptions != null.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
