[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4369?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13453159#comment-13453159
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-4369:
-------------------------------------
{quote}
OK, an idea out of left field, why do we have a "string" as a type anyway? Does
it make any sense to just remove it and have people use KeywordTokenizer when
they want this behavior? I'm ready for this idea to be shot down in flames
<G>....
{quote}
I've said the same thing before, but I figure I won't get consensus for that.
I'm happy to just get the name to be anything but String for now :)
Its still screwed up there are things like setBoost() at all on StringField
when it omits norms etc,
and screwed up that it bypasses the Analyzer (the classic NOT_ANALYZED
problem), but
fixing the name would at least help.
> StringFields name is unintuitive and not helpful
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-4369
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4369
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Robert Muir
> Attachments: LUCENE-4369.patch
>
>
> There's a huge difference between TextField and StringField, StringField
> screws up scoring and bypasses your Analyzer.
> (see java-user thread "Custom Analyzer Not Called When Indexing" as an
> example.)
> The name we use here is vital, otherwise people will get bad results.
> I think we should rename StringField to MatchOnlyField.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
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
