That sounds reasonable. A couple questions: - If the user enters the wrong pairings, we might need to throw a relevant exception, or have a 'silent' default that gets used. - Apart from IndexableFieldType classes, the only dependency for FieldType's mutators seems to be in DocumentStoredFieldVisitor. Is this correct?
Regards, Adnan On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Michael McCandless < [email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:35 PM, Chris Male <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Adnan Duric <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Chris, > >> Thanks for the feedback. If you want to create an issue in JIRA, I'd be > >> happy to contribute a patch to convert the FieldType constructor to bit > >> flags. How would you want to handle the IndexOptions enum? > > > > That's a good question. Forcing it to be a compulsory constructor > argument > > is a little messy, but so is having two constructors to support defaults. > > This is the kind of problem that we discussed in LUCENE-2308 as Mike > > mentioned. Feel free to open the issue yourself :) and attach a patch > which > > deals with it in a way you feel happy with. We can all then review it > and > > discuss. > > I think we could cut over IndexOptions to bits as well? DOCS, FREQS, > POSITIONS? > > We'd need checking in FT's ctor to catch wrong pairings, eg you cannot > turn ont POSITIONS unless you also turn on FREQS, and at least DOCS > must be set if INDEXED is set. > > Mike > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
