additionaly, this very reason makes something like Document.getBinaryValue(String name, byte[] myBuffer);, to put it mildly, impractical. This could be handy way to reduce allocations when fetching as stored fields can be big....
----- Original Message ---- From: Michael McCandless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Sent: Monday, 17 March, 2008 10:07:18 PM Subject: Fieldable, AbstractField, Field Hi, I'm working on LUCENE-1219, which I think is a good improvement to the Field API for creating stored binary fields based on parts of a shared byte[]. I'm not really happy with the current patch because our hands are tied by the fact that we have Fieldable as an interface. I'd really like to move that to a base class, but... Really, I think we could go just back to a single Field class instead of the three classes Fieldable, AbstractField and Field. If we had this then LUCENE-1219 would be easier to cleanly implement. Here're some details: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1219? page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin..system.issuetabpanels:comment- tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12578199#action_12578199 Is there some reason not to do this? Mike --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___________________________________________________________ Rise to the challenge for Sport Relief with Yahoo! For Good http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
