[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3312?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13435324#comment-13435324
]
Uwe Schindler edited comment on LUCENE-3312 at 8/16/12 4:27 AM:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Nikola, the first build was not done using Oracle JDK 6, so Javadocs were
not built. The recent one failed, because of invalid Javadocs. Could you send a
patch with those corrected? I would recommend to run "ant javadocs" or "ant
javadocs-lint) (more thorough) from top-level.
Here the error message (we fail on javadocs warnings):
http://jenkins.sd-datasolutions.de/job/lucene3312-branch/3/console
was (Author: thetaphi):
Hi Nikola, the first build was not done using Oracle JDK 6, so Javadocs
were not built. The recent one failed, because of invalid Javadocs. Could you
send a patch with those corrected? I would recommend to run "ant javadocs" or
"ant javadocs-lint) (more thorough) from top-level.
> Break out StorableField from IndexableField
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3312
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3312
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: core/index
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Assignee: Nikola Tankovic
> Labels: gsoc2012, lucene-gsoc-12
> Fix For: Field Type branch
>
> Attachments: lucene-3312-patch-01.patch, lucene-3312-patch-02.patch,
> lucene-3312-patch-03.patch, lucene-3312-patch-04.patch,
> lucene-3312-patch-05.patch, lucene-3312-patch-06.patch,
> lucene-3312-patch-07.patch, lucene-3312-patch-08.patch,
> lucene-3312-patch-09.patch, lucene-3312-patch-10.patch,
> lucene-3312-patch-11.patch, lucene-3312-patch-12a.patch,
> lucene-3312-patch-12.patch
>
>
> In the field type branch we have strongly decoupled
> Document/Field/FieldType impl from the indexer, by having only a
> narrow API (IndexableField) passed to IndexWriter. This frees apps up
> use their own "documents" instead of the "user-space" impls we provide
> in oal.document.
> Similarly, with LUCENE-3309, we've done the same thing on the
> doc/field retrieval side (from IndexReader), with the
> StoredFieldsVisitor.
> But, maybe we should break out StorableField from IndexableField,
> such that when you index a doc you provide two Iterables -- one for the
> IndexableFields and one for the StorableFields. Either can be null.
> One downside is possible perf hit for fields that are both indexed &
> stored (ie, we visit them twice, lookup their name in a hash twice,
> etc.). But the upside is a cleaner separation of concerns in API....
--
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
