Otis Gospodnetic wrote: > It's a temporary name, no? In the end we probably want to keep the > _name_ IndexWriter, so why not just it IndexWriter2 and when we are > happy with it, we make it be the new IndexWriter and we deprecate IW2.
For a temporary solution it seems good. But do you also mean releasing 2.1 with IW2? If so we need to javadoc very clearly that this is very probably a temporary class. Otherwise - Chris Hostetter wrote: > if it's not possible to make this class replace IndexModifier, then > DeletingIndexWriter or BufferedDeletingIndexWriter seem like they would be > fine to me. I prefer shorter names (when they are clear enough). BufferedDeletingIndexWriter seems quite long. Since IndexWriter too is buffering added documents, seems it is mostly the deletion that distinguishes the two. So my preference is DeletingIndexWriter. Also, Michael McCandless wrote: > Long-ish term I think we should aim for one reader class (IndexReader) > that you use to do read-only things and one writer class > (NewIndexModifier being closest to this now) to make changes (adds, > deletes, optimize, etc.) to an index. This sounds great. But at least one use case may no long be possible this way: there are probably applications 'out there' deleting documents in this logic: search the index, examine returned docs - post-processing them using some app-specific logic not well encapsulated in the index, select a few, delete them by id. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
