I removed it from META-INF and all tests pass. So I guess it's safe to remove it completely.
Actually Facet45Codec is not needed at all. I dont understand why we > have a codec class here at all. > Because it takes FacetIndexingParams and returns FacetDVF for all fields that appear in the indexing params. Can you do that without a Codec class? It's also easier to use than users figuring they should extend Lucene45Codec to plug-in FacetDVF. I'll just remove it from META-INF? Shai On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Robert Muir <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Shai Erera <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't think we should go that far. If you extend Lucene45Codec you > > basically agree to the entire index format, but are given a chance to > > control per-field postings and doc values. Otherwise, make your own > Codec, > > and then you'll need to register it in META-INF/services. > > > > The assert I proposed to make in the ctor is only for "education > purposes" > > -- apps need not register their Lucene45CodecExtension in services. We > can > > document it, and assertions would help verify it. > > > > I don't think we need anything here really: Facet45Codec shouldnt be > in META-INF. > > Actually Facet45Codec is not needed at all. I dont understand why we > have a codec class here at all. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
