This is precisely what I am looking for. Does anyone know if this work is
going in to Lucene 2.0?

Shane

On 10/10/05, Grant Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-lucene/Lucene2Whiteboard
>
> See item #11 of API changes. Maybe along the lines of what you are
> interested in, although I don't know if anyone has even attempted a design
> of it. I would also like to see this, plus the ability to store info at
> higher levels in the Index, such as Field (not on a per token basis),
> Document (info about the document that spans it's fields) and Index (such
> as
> coreference information). Alas, no time...
>
> -Grant
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Shane O'Sullivan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 8:38 AM
> >To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> >Subject: Adding generic payloads to a Term's posting list
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >To the best of my knowledge, it is not possible to add generic
> >data to a Term's posting list.
> >By this I mean info that is defined by the search engine, not
> >Lucene itself.
> >Whereas Lucene adds some data to the posting lists, such as
> >the term's position within a document, there are many other
> >useful types of information that could be attached to a term.
> >
> >Some examples would be in XML documents, to store the depth of
> >a tag in the document, or font information, such as if the
> >term appeared in a header or in the main body of text.
> >
> >Are there any plans to add such functionality to the API? If
> >not, where would be a the appropriate place to implement these
> >changes? I presume the TermInfosWriter and TermInfosReader
> >would have to be altered, as well as the classes which call
> >them. Could this be done without having to modify the index in
> >such a way that standard Lucene indexes couldn't read it?
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >Shane
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>

Reply via email to