[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3807?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13213477#comment-13213477
 ] 

Dawid Weiss commented on LUCENE-3807:
-------------------------------------

Sorry for being late, work. I like the patch. Comments:

+    public Comparator<BytesRef> getComparator() {
+      return null;
+    }

This shows up in a number of places. I have mixed feelings about certain types 
having a comparator and others not having it, but it's minor.

BufferingTermFreqIteratorWrapper is a nuisance (buffers in memory). It would be 
nicer to have a sort on disk if something doesn't support sorted iteration 
order.

I also wonder float -> long = 4 -> 8 bytes... would this count as an 
incompatible API change (because what used to work for a given amount of RAM 
won't work anymore -- BufferingTermFreqIteratorWrapper again)?

+      if (l1 < l2) {
+        aStop = l1;
+      } else {
+        aStop = l2;
+      }

if I remember correctly Math.min/max are intrinsics, so you can afford to be 
explicit ;)

Why not a specific covariant here?

-  public Float get(String key) {
+  public Object get(CharSequence key) {

@@ -199,7 +199,7 @@ public class LookupBenchmarkTest extends LuceneTestCase {
         public Integer call() throws Exception {
           int v = 0;
           for (String term : input) {
-            v += lookup.lookup(term, onlyMorePopular, num).size();
+            v += lookup.lookup(new CharsRef(term), onlyMorePopular, 
num).size();

This doesn't seem necessary (lookup accepts a CharSequence?).

I like the rest, including the CharSequenceish evilness of bytesToCharSequence 
:)


                
> Cleanup suggester API
> ---------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-3807
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3807
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: modules/other
>    Affects Versions: 3.6, 4.0
>            Reporter: Simon Willnauer
>             Fix For: 4.0
>
>         Attachments: LUCENE-3807.patch, LUCENE-3807.patch, LUCENE-3807.patch
>
>
> Currently the suggester api and especially TermFreqIterator don't play that 
> nice with BytesRef and other paradigms we use in lucene, further the java 
> iterator pattern isn't that useful when it gets to work with TermsEnum, 
> BytesRef etc. We should try to clean up this api step by step moving over to 
> BytesRef including the Lookup class and its interface...

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
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

Reply via email to