On 10/20/07, Grant Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think one of the questions that will come up from users is when > should I use addMetadata and when should I use addField? Why make > the distinction to the user? Fields have always represented > metadata, all your doing is optimizing the internal storage of them. > So from an interface side of things, I would just make it a new Field > type.
Same thing occured to me... Fieldable.isStoredSeparately()? I wouldn't mind this byte[] access to any type of field stored separately (non binary fields too). What about switching from char counts to byte counts for indexed (String) fields that are stored separately? I guess fields that were stored separately would not be returned unless asked for by name? -Yonik --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
