[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2308?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13094567#comment-13094567 ]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-2308: ------------------------------------- {quote} Okay so we seem to have consensus on moving to a get-only interface. {quote} I'm not sure: we should see what Uwe thinks. It seems he might be against the idea that there are multiple ways to do this (I think its a valid concern, i just disagree with him though). I think the ideal situation is where StringField/TextField cover the majority of use cases and doing anything with FT is expert, e.g. intended for apps like Solr to implement the interface and probably not even use our 'default' FieldType implementation. I think the default impl is just for someone that wants something thats not out-of-box, e.g. tokenized TextField that omits TF. > 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