[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1561?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12696758#action_12696758
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1561:
--------------------------------------------
bq. Wasn't it the plan to remove these interfaces in 3.0?
That would be fabulous. How would you do it? Collapse everything down to
concrete Field (no more interface nor abstract base class)? Make type/use
specific subclasses (eg NumericField)? What would you replace
IndexReader.document with? Would we better/explicitly represent multi-valued
fields?
bq. We could deprecate Fieldable in complete and leave it as it is.
I think that's a good fallback if we can't get the full cleanup of
Field/Document done for 2.9.
I guess in either of these two cases, we would want to leave Fieldable
unchanged (ie put back only the deprecated omitTf), so I'll make that change
now.
> Maybe rename Field.omitTf, and strengthen the javadocs
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1561
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1561
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Index
> Affects Versions: 2.4.1
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Assignee: Michael McCandless
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1561.patch
>
>
> Spinoff from here:
>
> http://www.nabble.com/search-problem-when-indexed-using-Field.setOmitTf()-td22456141.html
> Maybe rename omitTf to something like omitTermPositions, and make it clear
> what queries will silently fail to work as a result.
--
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
