[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2308?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13094526#comment-13094526
]
Uwe Schindler edited comment on LUCENE-2308 at 8/31/11 1:41 PM:
----------------------------------------------------------------
If we release the code with the builder pattern then there is only one
possibility and one example code in the class description. If somebody does not
like the builder pattern, who cares? If there is nothing else, you have to use
it. PERIOD.
bq. About code duplication: You can in the hidden ctor of the immutable class
make a clone of the builder and keep it somewhere private final inside the
instance. This one then holds the unmodifiable instance state.
I already explained: The code duplication comes from the two ways to do it.
Of course for lovers of telescopic unreadbale methods we can still add some
conventional factory methods, taking tons of parameters, but internally use the
builder. The user would not see the builder.
was (Author: thetaphi):
If we release the code with the builder pattern then there is only one
possibility and one example code in the class description. If somebody does not
like the builder pattern, who cares? If there is nothing else, you have to use
it. PERIOD.
> Separately specify a field's type
> ---------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-2308
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2308
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: core/index
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Assignee: Michael McCandless
> Labels: gsoc2011, lucene-gsoc-11, mentor
> Fix For: 4.0
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-2308-10.patch, LUCENE-2308-11.patch,
> LUCENE-2308-12.patch, LUCENE-2308-13.patch, LUCENE-2308-14.patch,
> LUCENE-2308-15.patch, LUCENE-2308-16.patch, LUCENE-2308-17.patch,
> LUCENE-2308-18.patch, LUCENE-2308-19.patch, LUCENE-2308-2.patch,
> LUCENE-2308-20.patch, LUCENE-2308-21.patch, LUCENE-2308-3.patch,
> LUCENE-2308-4.patch, LUCENE-2308-5.patch, LUCENE-2308-6.patch,
> LUCENE-2308-7.patch, LUCENE-2308-8.patch, LUCENE-2308-9.patch,
> LUCENE-2308-branch.patch, LUCENE-2308-final.patch, LUCENE-2308-ltc.patch,
> LUCENE-2308-merge-1.patch, LUCENE-2308-merge-2.patch,
> LUCENE-2308-merge-3.patch, LUCENE-2308.branchdiffs,
> LUCENE-2308.branchdiffs.moved, LUCENE-2308.patch, LUCENE-2308.patch,
> LUCENE-2308.patch, LUCENE-2308.patch, LUCENE-2308.patch
>
>
> This came up from dicussions on IRC. I'm summarizing here...
> Today when you make a Field to add to a document you can set things
> index or not, stored or not, analyzed or not, details like omitTfAP,
> omitNorms, index term vectors (separately controlling
> offsets/positions), etc.
> I think we should factor these out into a new class (FieldType?).
> Then you could re-use this FieldType instance across multiple fields.
> The Field instance would still hold the actual value.
> We could then do per-field analyzers by adding a setAnalyzer on the
> FieldType, instead of the separate PerFieldAnalzyerWrapper (likewise
> for per-field codecs (with flex), where we now have
> PerFieldCodecWrapper).
> This would NOT be a schema! It's just refactoring what we already
> specify today. EG it's not serialized into the index.
> This has been discussed before, and I know Michael Busch opened a more
> ambitious (I think?) issue. I think this is a good first baby step. We could
> consider a hierarchy of FIeldType (NumericFieldType, etc.) but maybe hold
> off on that for starters...
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
