Yeah I agree Shai - we want to point to search(Query, int) - but I think its too late! Hits should be removed in 3.0.
I think elaborating on the docs for docsScoredInOrder is great idea for 3.0 though. We might as well open an issue to give others a chance to comment about the doc improvements (not that anyone is sure too ...) - Mark Shai Erera wrote: > BTW Mark, I think the deprecation message in Hits should not even > mention TSDC, but instead show the "fast" search method search(Query, > int) or something like that. We're giving users a wrong impression as > if they really need to create TSDC and this can confuse people (see > other thread by Eks). > > Shai > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Shai Erera <ser...@gmail.com > <mailto:ser...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > I agree. The code sample was written before TSDC's create() method > was written. I should have searched for TSDC references by text ... > About docsScoredInOrder, I agree we should have elaborated on it > in the javadocs. I think a sample code exists somewhere in > CHANGES, but it wouldn't hurt to keep some sample code here too. > > Can such fixes go into 3.0? (I don't see why not). Should I open > an issue, or do you want to quickly fix it? > > Shai > > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Mark Miller > <markrmil...@gmail.com <mailto:markrmil...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Mark Miller wrote: > > Bummer - through a user, just found out we missed correcting > the docs > > for moving from Hits. He was quite perturbed ;) > > > > * @deprecated > > * see {...@link TopScoreDocCollector} and {...@link TopDocs} :<br> > > * <pre> > > * TopScoreDocCollector collector = new > TopScoreDocCollector(hitsPerPage); > > * searcher.search(query, collector); > > * ScoreDoc[] hits = collector.topDocs().scoreDocs; > > * for (int i = 0; i < hits.length; i++) { > > * int docId = hits[i].doc; > > * Document d = searcher.doc(docId); > > * // do something with current hit > > * ... > > * </pre> > > > > Nothing we can really do, but if for some reason we end up > with a 2.9.1 > > rather than 3.0 next, we should fix. Hard enough to upgrade > for some > > without these mistakes :) > > > > > This is actually quite nasty - I can see why he was perturbed. > We point > to a class without a public constructor like it shows. Then if you > manage to find the static constructor, there is no doc for the > params. > Then if you read the top, you see that you should know if you > want to > collect in order - which users likely don't. We obviously > don't even > want to point them to this class - but we do. > > -- > - Mark > > http://www.lucidimagination.com > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > <mailto:java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org> > For additional commands, e-mail: > java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > <mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org> > > > -- - Mark http://www.lucidimagination.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
