[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2019?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12772174#action_12772174
]
Steven Rowe commented on LUCENE-2019:
-------------------------------------
bq. if you disagree with this patch, then you should also disagree with
treating U+FFFF special!
Quoting myself from an earlier comment on this issue (apoligies):
bq. Instituting this consistency precludes Lucene-index-as-process-internal use
cases. I would argue that the price of consistency is in this case too high.
So you think that enforcing consistency is worth the cost of disallowing some
usages, and I don't.
> map unicode process-internal codepoints to replacement character
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-2019
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2019
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Index
> Reporter: Robert Muir
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: LUCENE-2019.patch
>
>
> A spinoff from LUCENE-2016.
> There are several process-internal codepoints in unicode, we should not store
> these in the index.
> Instead they should be mapped to replacement character (U+FFFD), so they can
> be used process-internally.
> An example of this is how Lucene Java currently uses U+FFFF
> process-internally, it can't be in the index or will cause problems.
--
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
