[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1345?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12662656#action_12662656
]
Marvin Humphrey commented on LUCENE-1345:
-----------------------------------------
Paul Elschot, a while back:
> It would also allow to get rid of Filter in most of the search api,
> as any Filter can just be added to a BooleanQuery.
In KS svn trunk (and potentially in Lucy), there is no "Filter"; all classes
that perform filtering are just subclasses of Query which you're expected to
apply using an ANDQuery. Can you think of any downside to that model? (Would
it be possible to retrofit Lucene to use it in 3.0?) The motivation was the
same as the one you articulate: to simplify the search API.
(Hmm...Thinking out loud: DeletionsFilter as a subclass of Query...)
> Allow Filter as clause to BooleanQuery
> --------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1345
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1345
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Search
> Reporter: Paul Elschot
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: booleansetperf.txt, DisjunctionDISI.java,
> DisjunctionDISI.patch, DisjunctionDISI.patch, LUCENE-1345.patch,
> LUCENE-1345.patch, OpenBitSetIteratorExperiment.java, TestIteratorPerf.java,
> TestIteratorPerf.java
>
>
--
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: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
