I would be more comfortable with this, actually. It avoids a rename of the FeatureVectorEncoder and re-uses lots more existing code. Having probes() throw UnimplementedOperationException is fine by me.
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Robin Anil <[email protected]> wrote: > > It seems to me that a dictionary based encoder is really no different > from > > any > > hashed feature except that the hash function is based on the dictionary > > rather than > > a hash function, the weight is derived from the dictionary and the > encoder > > really only > > supports a single probe. > > > > All of this seems doable with one or two sub-classes of the current > > TextValueEncoder. > > If you want to roll in Lucene based analysis, then sub-classing > > LuceneTextValueEncoder > > would be better. > > > I can proceed this way as well. Just need to move it around. So are you > more comfortable this way i.e. By throwing exception with probes?
