[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1333?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12621384#action_12621384
]
Doron Cohen commented on LUCENE-1333:
-------------------------------------
All tests pass here.
131 files were modified - I reviewed core and part of contrib, with minor
comments only:
* CompoundWordTokenFilterBase - createToken() calls clone() which deep
copies the char array, and then calls also setTermBuffer() which iterates
the chars again.
This can come to play in some analyzers. Usually I would ignore things like
this, but this
issue is so much about reusing and avoiding unneeded reallocation that I
decided to
bring this up. Actually there is no reallocation, just re-copying, so maybe
it is not too bad?
** Similarly in NgramTokenFilter - seems termBuffer would be copied twice for
each "secondary" token.
* Cloning: behavior regarding cloning is modified in few places.
** In SingleTokenTokenStream - adding cloning - I think it is correct.
** In TokenTypeSinkTokenizer.add(Token) cloning was removed because it is
taken care of in super.add(). I first thought it a bug but no, patch is
correct.
* I find the comment in TokenFilter about implementing next() vs. next(Token)
confusing.
Perhaps use here the same comment as in Tokenizer.
> Token implementation needs improvements
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1333
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1333
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Analysis
> Affects Versions: 2.3.1
> Environment: All
> Reporter: DM Smith
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 2.4
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1333-analysis.patch, LUCENE-1333-analyzers.patch,
> LUCENE-1333-core.patch, LUCENE-1333-highlighter.patch,
> LUCENE-1333-instantiated.patch, LUCENE-1333-lucli.patch,
> LUCENE-1333-memory.patch, LUCENE-1333-miscellaneous.patch,
> LUCENE-1333-queries.patch, LUCENE-1333-snowball.patch,
> LUCENE-1333-wikipedia.patch, LUCENE-1333-wordnet.patch,
> LUCENE-1333-xml-query-parser.patch, LUCENE-1333.patch, LUCENE-1333.patch,
> LUCENE-1333.patch, LUCENE-1333.patch, LUCENE-1333a.txt
>
>
> This was discussed in the thread (not sure which place is best to reference
> so here are two):
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-java-dev/200805.mbox/[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]
> or to see it all at once:
> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/lucene/java-dev/62851
> Issues:
> 1. JavaDoc is insufficient, leading one to read the code to figure out how to
> use the class.
> 2. Deprecations are incomplete. The constructors that take String as an
> argument and the methods that take and/or return String should *all* be
> deprecated.
> 3. The allocation policy is too aggressive. With large tokens the resulting
> buffer can be over-allocated. A less aggressive algorithm would be better. In
> the thread, the Python example is good as it is computationally simple.
> 4. The parts of the code that currently use Token's deprecated methods can be
> upgraded now rather than waiting for 3.0. As it stands, filter chains that
> alternate between char[] and String are sub-optimal. Currently, it is used in
> core by Query classes. The rest are in contrib, mostly in analyzers.
> 5. Some internal optimizations can be done with regard to char[] allocation.
> 6. TokenStream has next() and next(Token), next() should be deprecated, so
> that reuse is maximized and descendant classes should be rewritten to
> over-ride next(Token)
> 7. Tokens are often stored as a String in a Term. It would be good to add
> constructors that took a Token. This would simplify the use of the two
> together.
--
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]
