What would option 2 gain? In particular what is the usefulness of the Iterable<String>? If it's to get the list of fields to be used by FieldSelector that's probably not correct as a given set operation might only affect a subset of the potential fields.
On 19 sept. 2011, at 12:39, Hardy Ferentschik wrote: > Hi, > > sorry to bring this issue up again, but when starting the refactoring for > this issue (taking the approach > to make the bridge stateful) I noticed a problem. We thought that we could > introduce > > FieldBridge#initalize(String fieldName, LuceneOptions options) > > while removing the same parameters from the set method. The assumption was > that LuceneOptions are constant > for a given field. It turns out this is not the case. Due to dynamic > boosting the boost factor can actually > change on each call to set. > > The question is what to do now? > > 1. Just have FieldBridge#initalize(String fieldName) and keep the > LuceneOptions in set? > 2. Keep the stateless interface, but change set to > Iterable<String> set(String name, Object value, Document document, > LuceneOptions luceneOptions); > 3. Try to find a way which does not require the changing LuceneOptions. > See also comment on the Jira issue. > > Thoughts? > > --Hardy > _______________________________________________ > hibernate-dev mailing list > hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
