I created LUCENE-1575 which summarizes what we've agreed to do in this issue. Please review it. Also, let's move the discussion around the names to the issue.
I hope I covered everything we agreed on - I had to create the issue twice as it contains a lot of text and the session expired on me in the middle, and everything I typed got lost ... damn. Shai On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Michael McCandless < luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote: > 2009/3/27 Shai Erera <ser...@gmail.com>: > > I really liked HItCollector and hate to give up the name ... However > > Collector is fine with me either, and it is at least more generic than > > HitCollector ... > > > > Hitable sounds too aggressive/violent to me :) > > Now that you raised this objection, I can't get the image out of my > head, and I agree :) > > > BTW, I guess I should create some new searcher API which receives this > > Collector class (is Collector the chosen name?) and deprecate those who > > accept HitCollector? > > Those can also skip the instanceof check, and wrapping of HC to MRHC ... > > OK that'd be great. There are also default "score" methods in Scorer > that take HitCollector which'll have to be deprecated as well, and > some scorers (eg BooleanScorer) define those methods. > > > That also means that I should throw that MRHC wrapper (which rebases doc > > Ids)? If HitCollector is deprecated, then there's no need to keep it. > But > > perhaps we want it there in 2.9 for easier migration? Personally I think > > it's redundant since in 3.0 people will need to change all their > collectors > > anyway (since HitCollector will be removed, and every class which extends > > HitCollector will need be modified). What do you think? > > I think discard it, assuming the above full-replacement approach > doesn't hit any snags. > > > Also, there's no need to deprecate MRHC, since it's only in the trunk - I > > can simply rename it, right? > > Exactly :) A nice freedom... maybe we should never make any releases! > (kidding) > > > Ok I'll go ahead and prepare a patch. We can discuss the name more, at > the > > end it will just be a short "refactor" action in Eclipse, so that > shouldn't > > hold us (or me) up. > > OK thanks Shai. Make sure you mark the issue as Fix Version 2.9. > > Mike > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
