Hi Michael, Sure, the Interfaces are solution to this. They define what Lucene core expects from these entities and gives freedom to people to provide any implementation they wish. E.g. users that do not need Offset information, can just provide dummy implementation that returns constants...
The only problem with Interfaces is back compatibility curse :) But! Attribute Offset is simple enough entity, so I do not believe there is a need ever to change an interface Term is just char[] with offset/length , the same. Having really simple (and keeping them simple) concepts behind makes Interfaces possible... I see no danger. But as said, the concepts behind must remain simple. And by the way, I like the new API. Cheers, Eks ________________________________ From: Michael Busch <busch...@gmail.com> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, 28 April, 2009 10:22:45 Subject: Re: new TokenStream api Question Hi Eks Dev, I actually started experimenting with changing the new API slightly to overcome one drawback: with the variables now distributed over various Attribute classes (vs. being in a single class Token previously), cloning a "Token" (i.e. calling captureState()) is more expensive. This slows down the CachingTokenFilter and Tee/Sink-TokenStreams. So I was thinking about introducing interfaces for each of the Attributes. E.g. OffsetAttribute would then be an interface with all current methods, and OffsetAttributeImpl would be its implementation. The user would still use the API in exactly the same way as now, that is be e.g. calling addAttribute(OffsetAttribute.class), and the code takes care of instantiating the right class. However, there would then also be an API to pass in an actual instance, and this API would use reflection to find all interfaces that the instances implements. All of those interfaces that extend the Attribute interface would be added to the AttributeSource map, with the instance as the value. Then the Token class would implement all six attribute interfaces. An expert user could decide to pass in a Token instance instead of calling addAttribute(TermAttribute.class), addAttribute(PayloadAttribute.class), ... Then the attribute source would only contain a single instance that needs to be cloned in captureState(), making cloning much faster. And a (probably also expert) user could even implement an own class that implements exactly the necessary interfaces (maybe only 3 of the 6 provided), and make cloning faster than it is even with the old Token-based API. And of course also in your case could you just create a different implementation of such an interface, right? I think what's nice about this change is that it doesn't make it more complicated to use the TokenStream API, and the indexing pipeline still uses it the same way too, yet it's more extensible more expert users and possible to achieve the same or even better cloning performance. I will open a new Jira issue for this soon. But I'd be happy to hear feedback about the proposed changes, and especially if you think these changes would help you for your usecase. -Michael On 4/27/09 1:49 PM, eks dev wrote: Should I create a patch with something like this? With "Expert" javadoc, and explanation what is this good for should be a nice addition to Attribute cases. Practically, it would enable specialization of "hard linked" Attributes like TermAttribute. The only preconditions are: - "Specialized Attribute" must extend one of the "hard linked" ones, and provide class of it - Must implement default constructor - should extend by not introducing state (big majority of cases) (not to break captureState()) The last one could be relaxed i guess, but I am not yet 100% familiar with this code. Use cases for this are along the lines of my example, smaller, easier user code and performance (token filters mainly) ----- Original Message ---- From: Uwe Schindler <u...@thetaphi.de> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Sent: Sunday, 26 April, 2009 23:03:06 Subject: RE: new TokenStream api Question There is one problem: if you extend TermAttribute, the class is different (which is the key in the attributes list). So when you initialize the TokenStream and do a YourClass termAtt = (YourClass) addAttribute(YourClass.class) ...you create a new attribute. So one possibility would be to also specify the instance and save the attribute by class (as key), but with your instance. If you are the first one that creates the attribute (if it is a token stream and not a filter it is ok, you will be the first, it adding the attribute in the ctor), everything is ok. Register the attribute by yourself (maybe we should add a specialized addAttribute, that can specify a instance as default)?: YourClass termAtt = new YourClass(); attributes.put(TermAttribute.class, termAtt); In this case, for the indexer it is a standard TermAttribute, but you can more with it. Replacing TermAttribute by an own class is not possible, as the indexer will get a ClassCastException when using the instance retrieved with getAttribute(TermAttribute.class). Uwe ----- Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de -----Original Message----- From: eks dev [mailto:eks...@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2009 10:39 PM To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: new TokenStream api Question I am just looking into new TermAttribute usage and wonder what would be the best way to implement PrefixFilter that would filter out some Terms that have some prefix, something like this, where '-' represents my prefix: public final boolean incrementToken() throws IOException { // the first word we found while (input.incrementToken()) { int len = termAtt.termLength(); if(len > 0 && termAtt.termBuffer()[0]!='-') //only length > 0 and non LFs return true; // note: else we ignore it } // reached EOS return false; } The question would be: can I extend TermAttribute and add boolean startsWith(char c); The point is speed and my code gets smaller. TermAttribute has one method called in termLength() and termBuffer() I do not understand (back compatibility, I guess) public int termLength() { initTermBuffer(); // I'd like to avoid it... return termLength; } I'd like to get rid of initTermBuffer(), the first option is to *extend* TermAttribute code (but fields are private, so no help there) or can I implement my own MyTermAttribute (will Indexer know how to deal with it?) Must I extend TermAttribute or I can add my own? thanks, eks --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
