[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1084?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12559583#action_12559583
]
Grant Ingersoll commented on LUCENE-1084:
-----------------------------------------
I don't know the answer to those questions, I just know we faced similar issues
with changing the StandardTokenizer. It was clearly doing something wrong
(incorrectly marking acronyms), yet we had to do the deprecation dance to
handle it b/c there may be applications that rely on that functionality. This
one seems a little less problematic, I agree. There may, however, be
applications out there that occasionally hit a really large document and don't
want it to throw off their indexing, so they truncate it.
I think we ought to have a separate discussion on our back compatibility
standards on java-dev, as I, personally, think we have some room for
improvement when it comes to these kinds of things. I will kick it off, as it
has been something I have been mulling for a while.
> increase default maxFieldLength?
> --------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1084
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1084
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Index
> Affects Versions: 2.2
> Reporter: Daniel Naber
> Assignee: Michael McCandless
> Fix For: 2.4
>
>
> To my understanding, Lucene 2.3 will easily index large documents. So
> shouldn't we get rid of the 10,000 default limit for the field length? 10,000
> isn't that much and as Lucene doesn't have any error logging by default, this
> is a common problem for users that is difficult to debug if you don't know
> where to look.
> A better new default might be Integer.MAX_VALUE.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
