Hi Karl, I can update InstantiatedIndexWriter to work with the new TokenStream API. What about MemoryIndex? Is it incompatible now as well?
Jason On 11/26/08, Karl Wettin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was just about to get on with LUCENE-1462 when I noticed the new > TokenStream API. (Yeah, I've been really busy with other stuff for a > while now.) > > Rather than keeping InstantiatedIndexWriter in sync with IndexWriter > I'm considering suggesting that we simply delete > InstantiatedIndexWriter. > > There is this one major caveats that would go away if we removed > InstantiatedIndexWriter: it lacks read/write locks at commit time. > Also, the javadocs says "consider using II as an immutable store" all > over the place.. > > I'm a bit split here, I can see the use of beeing able to add a few > documents to an existing II, but at the same time these indices are > ment to be really small so creating a new one from an IndexReader is > really no big deal. This operation means a few seconds of overhead if > one needs to append data to the II. > > > I say that we should remove it from trunk. Less hassles. Or is this to > remove good functionallity? I never use it, it was written in order to > understand Lucene. But if people find it is very useful then of course > it should be kept in there. > > That might be a problem for some people. For instance I think Jason > Rutherglens realtime search use this class. > > > karl > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
